Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Atheist?

Chattymute,

I think kpd560 has concluded this particular topic well and I have no intention of prolonging it any further than necessary. So i'll just make a quick couple of points -

[quote:36ejl1wh]Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
Simple, we've got to be that intelligent to easily understand it.[/quote:36ejl1wh]
The answer was meant to be humorous - I apologize for apparently failing at it. But if you noticed, i did continue seriously enough through the rest of that post - the main content being that we need to earnestly apply ourselves to be able to understand the Bible.

I know some people taking Chemistry who despise Chemistry, aren't good at it, and want nothing to do with it who bought a book called "Chemistry for Dummies".
Now why would some people want to buy such a book if they despised chemistry and weren't inclined to it at all? You give the answer yourself in the following line -
They were able to better understand Chem and pass the class
They wanted to pass the class. That's the motivation. That caused the inclination. And then yes, they could understand the book.
Similarly, some people want to pass the class of 'life' - and the only way to do that is to put your faith in Christ. This faith comes through the word of God, the Bible. The desire to pass the class of 'life' motivates and inclines us towards this Book and then we do find it easy to understand because we've got the best Teacher around.
So, the conclusion would be that God has made it apparently clear for all to understand. The ones who aren't motivated to pass at all or who don't believe that there will be an examination might find the Bible quite difficult to comprehend.

I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. If so, can we leave it at that?
 
ivdavid said:
They wanted to pass the class. That's the motivation. That caused the inclination. And then yes, they could understand the book.
Similarly, some people want to pass the class of 'life' - and the only way to do that is to put your faith in Christ. This faith comes through the word of God, the Bible. The desire to pass the class of 'life' motivates and inclines us towards this Book and then we do find it easy to understand because we've got the best Teacher around.
So, the conclusion would be that God has made it apparently clear for all to understand. The ones who aren't motivated to pass at all or who don't believe that there will be an examination might find the Bible quite difficult to comprehend.

I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. If so, can we leave it at that?
Not really satisfactory at all, but I'll leave at this post if you want.

I almost included that but didn't feel like typing it. Motivation is needed for anything we do. There is always some level of motivation or we wouldn't be doing it.

Life isn't a class. You are always learning, but there is no pass or fail. Everyone meets the same end, death. I am inclined to understand the Bible (for my own reasons). My inclination to understand the Bible doesn't take away the atrocities against mankind in it, the sexism, etc. And it doesn't take away the inconsistencies or that the book doesn't make one bit of sense.

And who would that teacher be? If it is God, I've tried speaking to him previously to clear things up. Sincerely tried. He doesn't answer back.

Where did you get that conclusion? If God made it so clear, there wouldn't be other faiths and there wouldn't be so many interpretations of the Bible (good and bad).

Assuming your class analogy is correct, it will be difficult for me to comprehend works by F Scott Fitzgerald because I have no desire to pass a class on it or take an examination on it. That is simply not the case. I understand his works just fine without having to learn about it. The same applies to the Bible and goes back to why God wouldn't make it clear.
 
kpd560 said:
I have a simple question.

Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
Nah, I'm with the believers on this one. By your logic Shakespeare was a bad writer because it takes a lot of work to get the best out of his plays.
 
Chattymute and all others interested,

Right, we can then move on to discussing Christian doctrine that you perhaps have felt a bit difficult understanding...

Firstly, I think you would agree that when we refer to 'God', we imply the All-Knowing,All-Wise,All-Good,All-Powerful,All-True,All-Loving,Perfectly-Just,Absolutely-Holy, Omnipresent Eternal Sovereign Being. (this isn't all-inclusive of His attributes)

Here is a gist of how i understand Christianity -

How do you think the Absolutely-Holy God would deal with evil? Wouldn't He despise and abhor it?

How would you define evil? Isn't it anything apart from or against the All-Good God?

What do you think sin is? Isn't it any indulged thought or action against the will of God?

How would we know what the will of God is? Hasn't it been revealed in the Law by God?

Where do we access this Law? Isn't it written in our hearts while being witnessed by our conscience? Isn't it written in the Word of God?

Have we ever sinned and do we continue to sin? I think each of us can answer this ourselves.

If we have sinned, then haven't we gone against the All-Good and Absolutely-Holy God? Then aren't we evil in God's sight?

What would the Perfectly-Just God do here? Wouldn't He condemn us to perish?

But What would the All-Loving God do here? Wouldn't He want to forgive us and overlook sin?

But how can the Perfectly-Just God overlook sin? Shouldn't He pour His just wrath on us evil people?

What does the All-Knowing and All-Wise God do here? He sends us a Saviour in Christ to bear the full wrath of God on our behalf.

What are we deserving of by our own merit? Isn't it eternal separation from God?

Aren't we then at God's mercies to be saved from perishing? Aren't we dependent on His grace alone to gain life? Is there anything that we may boast of in His presence?

How are we saved into the presence of God? God commands us to repent our dead works and turn away from sin. We are justified before God on the merit of Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross. God commands us to believe in Christ, to put our faith in Him alone. God declares that salvation is only by grace through faith.

What happens then? We are now regenerated and are given a new heart and renewed spirit. We are adopted as God's children and are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. To gain life by the sheer love of God makes us eternally grateful to God and we offer ourselves as a living sacrifice to God.

How are we to live then? We will be continually sanctified by God. We have to consciously live by faith through love and that faith has to be evidenced by good works. Anything done without love is worthless.

How does God sanctify us? He may teach us, comfort us, guide us, or even send trials to faith. Each of the trials, when overcome by faith, works patience and hope in us.

What does satan do? he tempts as much as possible but the All-Powerful God in us is stronger than any out there in the world. These are again tests of faith and teaches us to endure.

What happens if we succumb to temptation? We are deeply grieved and we confess our sins to God. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins based on the intercessory work of our High Priest - Jesus Christ.

How should we deal with the world? Since we seek the Kingdom of God, we put no trust in this passing world and all its lusts thereof. We pledge allegiance to the Lord and King Jesus Christ, who is exalted above all creation. This necessitates spiritual separation from the world.

What is our hope then? We live in the hope that we would be resurrected just as Jesus Christ was and we'd be in our glorified states for eternity in the presence of God in His Kingdom.

What would happen at the end of the world? The Lord Jesus Christ will judge all mankind and condemn the unrepentant people to the eternal lakes of fire while leading the saints with Him to His eternal Kingdom.

So, what do we do having experienced this love, grace and peace? We want to share it with others, we want others to receive this offer of life.

What does satan do here to the unbelievers? he keeps them blinded from the truth using their own self-rebellion against God with which all of us are born. he suggests them provisions for indulging their evil desires and self-pride by offering them various other avenues to put their faith in - the world, other religions, themselves, their own interpretations of God etc. - anything but in the true Living God. satan also creates obstacles to any possible faith and the people who love not the truth find excuses therein.

What does satan do to the believers? he creates doubt in their faith and tries to deceive them through any selfish desires that they may have allowed to creep up. he tries to make them depart from the faith through the world system and man's own sinful nature. he also sows weeds among the true believers so as to deter any future believers from seeking God. These weeds are wolves in sheep's clothing and claim to be believers but satisfy their selfish gains through deceitful means.

Why does God suffer satan to tempt people? To test people's faith or to retribute his divine judgement.

How are we treated by the world? The ones who believe, gladly receive the Gospel message and rejoice in the Lord. The others mock, amuse themselves, persecute or ignore us.

So, what's this all about in this world? It's all about being restored or not into a spiritual relationship with the Living God. It's not about us after all - It's all about God.


I'll just state here that this isn't complete - i only hope it's sufficient. And I hope this makes some more sense. I also acknowledge that I may have erred without intending to. There may be some points that may require more elaboration. I'd be willing to discuss any of these points in detail. But my only request is to discuss doctrinal beliefs and not pass judgmental, opinionated remarks. Thank you for your interest.
 
logical bob said:
kpd560 said:
I have a simple question.

Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
Nah, I'm with the believers on this one. By your logic Shakespeare was a bad writer because it takes a lot of work to get the best out of his plays.

Just clarifying, that isn't what I was saying above. Good works you can always read over and over again and gets something new out of them.
 
I don't have time to address everything right now, so I'll go through quickly.
Your description of God creates the problem with evil.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, 341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens

It also creates the problem of why we even need to be on Earth. Since God is all-knowing, why do we need to live this life only to end up where he knows we will end up (all-knowing)?

Why would an all-loving God send a other wise good non-Christian, or Christian, to Hell for eternity? A parent doesn't punish there kid for their whole life because they did one thing wrong. You punish, and the end the punishment once a lesson has been learned. Getting a infinite amount of torture for a finite amount of sins is illogical.

Plus, that means everyone would end up in Hell eventually, since it is possible to fall from God even in Heaven. Lucifer and his followers did it.

God would despise evil, that doesn't mean you lower your standards and act "evil" in return (genocides).

Evil can't be defined. It is relative to that culture.

I was taught that sin is going against what God wants.

The Laws of God contradict themselves. (The punishment for murder)

The Bible isn't the exact word of God anyways (even if God inspired it). It's lost meaning in translations and humans are error prone.

I don't see how sinning makes you evil. Just because a child steals from the cookie jar does not make that child evil. And aren't we supposedly God's children?

Seems to me he would want to forgive you. So why doesn't he give second chances after we die?

Jesus wasn't much of a sacrifice. He died and went to Heaven like he would have done anyways. A sacrifice would be actually bearing our punishment (Hell).

Seems to me from what you described that God is just a dictator who essentially says " Do what I want to do because I say do it or you will go to Hell."

I can't do anymore right now. I have to go.
 
logical bob said:
kpd560 said:
I have a simple question.

Why can't the ultimate book written by the most intelligent entity in the universe be easily understood by all the people it was written for?
Nah, I'm with the believers on this one. By your logic Shakespeare was a bad writer because it takes a lot of work to get the best out of his plays.

If Shakespeare was a god supposedly relaying the most important information in the universe to man I would have the same criticism of him. You would think that a God could write clearly enough to obviate the need for apologetics. Since he knew how much confusion his writing would cause I can only conclude that he wanted it this way. He must see the constant bickering over biblical interpretations as a good or necessary thing. Why? I have no idea. All of which brings us back around to the fact that a leader who can't be understood by his followers is worse than no leader at all.

This doesn't mean that every jot and tittle in the bible hasn't been analyzed by apologetics over the years and some defense(frequently tortuous) has been devised that totally satisfies those who must believe at all costs. Recall how easily someone is convinced of a position that they want to believe but a modicum of scepticism applied to the bible will leave the reader scratching their head in confusion.
 
I'm not as intelligent as Einstein or Marie Curie, but I can (generally) easily understand physics and chemistry if I take the time to learn it because either they or someone else smarter than I have broken down those concepts for others to learn.
- Chattymute

When you want to justify something, it is generally not a good idea to use and example that slaps you in the face. Firstly the Gospel of Christ is simple. It is through your own ignorance that you fail to see it. So please don't go blaming God for that one.

To help you understand what I am talking about. God inspired the Bible, it is his WORD. He used men to write it, he uses men to explain it. I teach children and adults on how to use computers. I have a long history in training staff in business and sales etc. One thing I have learnt is that if the learner does not want to learn, as a teacher I am wasting my time. The student has to get by in first (ie he or she has to feel they will benefit from the teaching). Do you think you can truly understand the Bible and study the Bible if you don't believe in Christ?
Yes the Bible is a complex Book and thats what makes it so interesting to study and learn from. Even in the new testament when Paul was teaching the gentiles he refrained from going to deep into everything. It takes time and it takes the Holy Spirit to lead you. Just like you learnt to crawl before you could walk, you need to need to understand certain truths before more will be revealed. BUT its not going to happen if the Holy Spirit is not in you.
I know I am going to get a lot of criticism from athiests regarding these comments. PLEASE REMEMBER I AM BIASED!

Logical Bob, I will be responding to your request on my Isaiah comment earlier.
 
Ed the Ned said:
I'm not as intelligent as Einstein or Marie Curie, but I can (generally) easily understand physics and chemistry if I take the time to learn it because either they or someone else smarter than I have broken down those concepts for others to learn.
- Chattymute

When you want to justify something, it is generally not a good idea to use and example that slaps you in the face. Firstly the Gospel of Christ is simple. It is through your own ignorance that you fail to see it. So please don't go blaming God for that one.

To help you understand what I am talking about. God inspired the Bible, it is his WORD. He used men to write it, he uses men to explain it. I teach children and adults on how to use computers. I have a long history in training staff in business and sales etc. One thing I have learnt is that if the learner does not want to learn, as a teacher I am wasting my time. The student has to get by in first (ie he or she has to feel they will benefit from the teaching). Do you think you can truly understand the Bible and study the Bible if you don't believe in Christ?
Yes the Bible is a complex Book and thats what makes it so interesting to study and learn from. Even in the new testament when Paul was teaching the gentiles he refrained from going to deep into everything. It takes time and it takes the Holy Spirit to lead you. Just like you learnt to crawl before you could walk, you need to need to understand certain truths before more will be revealed. BUT its not going to happen if the Holy Spirit is not in you.
I know I am going to get a lot of criticism from athiests regarding these comments. PLEASE REMEMBER I AM BIASED!

Logical Bob, I will be responding to your request on my Isaiah comment earlier.
You only think it is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word. That is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
Using an imperfect beings to write what is supposed to be the perfect word from a perfect being just shows me that God, if he even exists, wanted there to be mistakes in it and debate over the meaning.

The part in bold is contradictory. Make up your mind. If the Bible was as simple as you first claimed, there would be no debate, or at least considerable less, over any of it. Many would claim you of being ignorant as well. Don't start the name calling. I can't blaim a being I don't believe in. Nice try though.

Obviously. I said that before as did ivdavid. You have to have motivation to do something (learning). Don't pretend like you've said something new.

I can benefit from the teaching without being a Christian. And I can have a desire to understand something or a position without being of that position of believing in that something.

You can understand (at least partially) and study anything without having to believe in it. I don't believe in communism or want to be a communist. That doesn't mean I can't understand in or study it.

There is no truth in crawling or walking. You learn how to crawl first because you don't have the proper strength yet to walk, and your knees (since they aren't developed all the way yet) make it very easy to crawl. What hidden truth is there in it? It is also possible to skip the crawling stage, though it is usually more helpful to crawl before you walk.

Everyone has a little bias in their views. And I would criticize your comments even if I was Christian, and I know several others Christians who would agree with me on this.
 
Ed the Ned said:
What would your motivation be to study the Bible?

Because I have an general interest in religions. I don't have time at the moment to really study the Bible because of school and sports. I'm also a self-study kind of person with an interest in almost everything. I like to know others view points and how the compare and contrast with my own. Also, I like to debate (and learn in the process), but I can't debate without knowing at least a little bit about what I am debating on. Put simply: I like to learn.



ETA: It has been a few years since I looked at the Bible closely, but I was a Christian for the majority of my life. At least I tried to be and I tried to believe.
 
The part in bold is contradictory. Make up your mind. If the Bible was as simple as you first claimed, there would be no debate, or at least considerable less, over any of it. Many would claim you of being ignorant as well. Don't start the name calling. I can't blaim a being I don't believe in. Nice try though.

I did not claim the Bible was simple, I claimed the Gospel is simple. Please understand my use of the word ignorance was not name calling. So please let us define the word ignorance.

Definition: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Firstly as per my previous post, you cannot be educated in the way of GOD if you dont study GODS WORD. The Bible.
Secondly: If you do not want to accept the message of Christ (The Gospel) then you will be unaware of him.
Thirdly: If you dont become involved in His Church you will be uninformed as to the Christian way of life and the Christian faith.

So by claiming in your words "I cannot blame a being I don't believe in" in your response cleary shows your ignorance.

There was no name calling.

The Bible isn't the exact word of God anyways (even if God inspired it). It's lost meaning in translations and humans are error prone.
- Chattymute

This seems that you might just be a closet Christian, saying the Bible is not the exact ( So God does have an exact) word of God (which you do capitalize by the way, shows some respect) and even saying that even if God inspired it, it was humans that lost its meaning (which I am sure you will be able to tell us the meaning), because humans are prone to error. I suppose the same error that causes humans to follow other gods. The same error that causes humans to murder, rape, steal and seek self all the time. Chattymute, I don't know God, I am learning to get to know Him. But I do know He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for Us (Includes you) so that we may have eternal life with Him. We just need accept that we are sinners and to believe. If you chose not to no-one will be responsible for you, but you. So why bother making your comments know to Christians? Are you trying to convert us to atheism? or trying to make us deny Christ? Are you trying to show us you are more wise in your worldly ways? I really cannot understand your purpose?
 
Ed the Ned said:
The part in bold is contradictory. Make up your mind. If the Bible was as simple as you first claimed, there would be no debate, or at least considerable less, over any of it. Many would claim you of being ignorant as well. Don't start the name calling. I can't blaim a being I don't believe in. Nice try though.

I did not claim the Bible was simple, I claimed the Gospel is simple. Please understand my use of the word ignorance was not name calling. So please let us define the word ignorance.

Definition: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Firstly as per my previous post, you cannot be educated in the way of GOD if you dont study GODS WORD. The Bible.
Secondly: If you do not want to accept the message of Christ (The Gospel) then you will be unaware of him.
Thirdly: If you dont become involved in His Church you will be uninformed as to the Christian way of life and the Christian faith.

So by claiming in your words "I cannot blame a being I don't believe in" in your response cleary shows your ignorance.

There was no name calling.
I was using that definition of ignorance. The uneducated part.

The Gospel is a part of the Bible. So yes, it is contradictory.
I haven't studied the Bible as much as some, but I have looked at it. So essentially, you are calling me a liar in that I haven't.

I don't have to "accept" the message to understand and study it. I already explained that.

I was a Christian. I'm pretty sure I already said that. I know the Christian way of life and the Christian faith.

Not having belief in something does not show ignorance. It shows I don't believe in it. Go back to the communist example I used before.

[quote:2hv6stpo]The Bible isn't the exact word of God anyways (even if God inspired it). It's lost meaning in translations and humans are error prone.
- Chattymute

This seems that you might just be a closet Christian, saying the Bible is not the exact ( So God does have an exact) word of God (which you do capitalize by the way, shows some respect) and even saying that even if God inspired it, it was humans that lost its meaning (which I am sure you will be able to tell us the meaning), because humans are prone to error. I suppose the same error that causes humans to follow other gods. The same error that causes humans to murder, rape, steal and seek self all the time. Chattymute, I don't know God, I am learning to get to know Him. But I do know He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for Us (Includes you) so that we may have eternal life with Him. We just need accept that we are sinners and to believe. If you chose not to no-one will be responsible for you, but you. So why bother making your comments know to Christians? Are you trying to convert us to atheism? or trying to make us deny Christ? Are you trying to show us you are more wise in your worldly ways? I really cannot understand your purpose?[/quote:2hv6stpo]

No. I am not a closet Christian. Don't attempt to tell me what I do and don't believe. When discussing things like that, for the purpose of debate, I'll let it be assumed that the Bible is the word of God, or that particular story is true, etc.

My actual opinion of the Bible would probably offend, so I won't state it here. And it is nothing like what I stated above.

I capitalize the word of God because it is his name. I don't do it out of respect. I have no respect for your God. Most atheists I know capitalize God because it is proper grammar.
Do you really think the Bible has the exact same words and phrases as the original text? Changing one word can change a meaning.

I won't get into what I think the error of religion is. Humans raping and stealing isn't the same kind of error as mistranslating a text.

I really don't care if you "know" God or not.

Jesus wasn't a sacrifice. He died and went to Heaven like he would have anyways. A sacrifice means giving something up for someone else. God didn't give anything up in that. Even if your God did exist as the Bible portrays him, I wouldn't worship him.

By sinner, do you mean that I go against what God wants (again if he exists)? Then, yes. I have no trouble admitting that.

What I believe about God (whether he exists or not) isn't a choice. I can't force myself to believe in him. I can try, but it won't work. I know because I have tried before.

I have no intention of converting you. I doubt anyone can convert someone over the internet anyways. I'm merely stating my opinion or issues I have. You don't have to read it, and you don't have to reply. I also like debate, as I stated before. Most of the time it is to challenge my own views.
I'm not trying to make you deny Christ. I couldn't care less if you believe in him or not.
I'm also no wiser than most others, and I don't pretend to be. (though some seem to think I think that)
What worldly ways? What are you talking about?

To debate. To learn. To challenge my own views. It's not that hard to understand.
 
Chattymute, I'll try and do my best to answer all your questions. Again, i'm not trying to impose my beliefs - just want to share them...

Almost all your questions seem to revolve around evil and how it contradicts Christianity and yet I see you holding a double standard on the concept of evil.
Take for instance these 2 statements of yours -
(I'm assuming this first statement refers to the holy wars recorded in the Bible.)
God would despise evil, that doesn't mean you lower your standards and act "evil" in return (genocides).

Evil can't be defined. It is relative to that culture.
Your stance seems contradictory. If you believe in the second statement, then you shouldn't have a problem with the first - because perhaps in their culture, relatively speaking, genocide is not evil.
But that's not what you agree with, right? You seem to deny that evil can be defined and that it's definition is universal and absolute, yet you somehow seem to be applying your 'relative' definition of evil to complain against the justice in the holy wars.
So, pick one statement of the above two - if it's the 2nd statement, then you have no complaint against Christianity. We'll leave it at that then. But if it's the 1st statement, then let's continue discussing....


Now, even in your universal absolute concept of evil that you deny but seem to keep applying, you're mistaken about its definition. Evil as such does not have any definition independent of God. In fact no moral value has any definition apart from God. His laws too are not something that God Himself has to follow consciously - it's the other way around - it is what God wills by nature that He's laid out as laws.

So, if I wanted to grasp the concept of perfect love - I'd have to define it in God. If I wanted to grasp the concept of perfect good - I'd have to define it in God. And so on. Now, the absence of these attributes of God - even partial absence - is what gives way to imperfection. Absence of love(even partial) is hate. Absence of good(even partial) is evil.
So, God's nature and attributes define what is good and any violation against them is evil.

So, satan became a fallen angel because of his self-pride - the great sin. Self-pride and rebellion is what keeps man too away from God. Self-pride is where you think you can do without God - where you think you can do just as well - where you think your wisdom is greater than His - where you think your choices are better than His and so on. Basically, it's trying to free oneself from God's rule. Who would want to stay away from God? Who wouldn't want to obey God's will? Won't it be the people who are in enmity with God? And can enemies of God be anything but evil? Nonetheless, God provides salvation to us out of His mercy and grace.

So yes, it is possible to fall from a spiritual relationship with God as Adam did fall. God uses the fall to show us what we are apart from Him. Do you see the works of rebellious man under the rule of satan in this fallen world? Evil is our abuse of God's grace. Still, He makes known His mercies and points out our grave need for it. Those who are saved acknowledge wholeheartedly that they have been saved only by grace and not on any merit of theirs - and so they throw themselves to the mercies of God and deny selves. They offer themselves as living sacrifices to the Lord and rejoice in doing God's will alone. They are a new creation who know and experience the love, mercy and grace of God - such can and will never rebel against God and God chooses them to eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. This world is where we get to know God's mercies, judgement, wrath, righteousness and holiness through repentance, regeneration and sanctification. Here, God moulds us to be conformed to the image of His Son - Jesus Christ. God helps us learn to overcome the world, satan and our own sinful natures.

Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Yes, God is both able and willing. evil comes from abuse of our freedom of will. To eradicate evil, God would have to eradicate us or teach us to obey His will. Now, He has chosen to teach us - but how many actually want to learn? On Judgement day, He will choose to eradicate evil once and for all from being present in the new world.

Seems to me he would want to forgive you. So why doesn't he give second chances after we die?
You've got your chance here - if you're not taking it now and here, then I doubt you'd take it any time later. Everything has been taught - all consequences have been warned of - absolutely your choice to ignore now and regret later.

It also creates the problem of why we even need to be on Earth. Since God is all-knowing, why do we need to live this life only to end up where he knows we will end up (all-knowing)?
The above paras should have answered this - we need to be on earth to learn to put our faith in God in total humility and to learn to obey His will.
A similar question that is put forth is why do we have to pray to God when He already knows what we are going to pray for. The reply is the same - prayer doesn't change God, it changes us - helps us learn to trust in Him more and more.

I was taught that sin is going against what God wants.

I don't see how sinning makes you evil.
You were taught that sin is going against God and anything against God is evil - hence sinning makes one evil.

Jesus wasn't much of a sacrifice. He died and went to Heaven like he would have done anyways.
The sacrifice was in coming into this world in the flesh when He could have remained seated in all glory in Heaven, facing suffering for our sakes, having sin imputed on Him even though He knew no sin, being offered as our guilt offering, being spiritually separated from His own Father, being crushed by the wrath of His own Father and facing death when He is the giver of all life.
This is the choice we had - His sacrifice or eternal condemnation for all. Of course, on the Last Day, those who are found to have treated His sacrifice with contempt do have to face judgement.

Why would an all-loving God send a other wise good non-Christian, or Christian, to Hell for eternity?
There is no 'otherwise good man' on earth. Of course, we can give our own standards of morals and deem most good but in God's sight, all fall short. Sinning is not the odd mistake or error here and there - it's a way of thinking in the heart. Either your heart is turned towards God or it isn't. If it's turned towards God, it means you are being sanctified by God through faith by His grace. If it isn't turned towards God, then you are necessarily evil. Just because God's common grace prevents us from letting loose our evil desires doesn't mean that we are 'good'. This is why we need Jesus as our only means of salvation. All people of other religions continue to believe in their gods because they love the freedom those gods give from the one true Living God - this is still rebellion against God. But if any of those are seekers of truth, God is faithful to reveal the truth of Christ to those earnest souls.

My point is - God looks into our hearts and sees every thought we entertain - a person might do a very good work of donating a huge sum of money to charity but might all the while be praising himself in his heart out of self-pride - this is evil in God's sight but good in man's sight.

Another eg: if a boy loves cookies and I ask him to stop eating them, he might rebel against me. He might stop eating while I'm there but might continue to eat when I'm gone. He might refrain from eating altogether but he might lust for that. He might wholeheartedly ignore cookies but turn towards chocolates that I've already asked him not to eat.
But in all these he has been wrong in his heart - there was no real loving obedience to my command.

You punish, and the end the punishment once a lesson has been learned. Getting a infinite amount of torture for a finite amount of sins is illogical.
You're right in that punishment is to lead one to repentance and to teach him to do good. God does that with all people here. But i think you're mixing up punishment and judgement/condemnation. The eternal lakes of fire is not punishment, it is judgement and condemnation for man's continual sinning and rebellion against God. Judgement comes only when the 'lessons of the punishments haven't been learned'.

Seems to me from what you described that God is just a dictator who essentially says " Do what I want to do because I say do it or you will go to Hell."
God is a Holy King who says " Do what I want you to do because it is the best for you or you will go to hell."

I hope this could provide some meaningful discussion...
 
ivdavid said:
God is a Holy King who says " Do what I want you to do because it is the best for you or you will go to hell."

That sounds very noble but how is it possible for us to have free will when God already knows precisely who's going to heaven and to hell? In other words, nothing we "choose" to do or believe will have any effect on the outcome. If God exists, free will is an illusion.

Also, how is the Holy Kings statement not simple blackmail? In other words, "Do what I say is best for you or I'll burn you in hell forever." How is that a free choice? If He truly wanted a free choice there would be no punishment or reward to influence our decision.
 
New to the boards and much to come up to speed with. I'm sorry to previous posters, but I'm going to pose a new set of questions to our atheist friends. These might be old, done questions, but they will help me in establishing where you are coming from.

A basic question on the universe and evolution. Every action has a cause. I can think of nothing that occurs without something causing it to happen. That said, what is your most logical reason for the universe coming in to existence? What was the impetus for your Big Bang? From an atheistic perspective, there was nothing that caused itself to establish everything. Is it more reasonable for you to assume that "nothing" caused all of the universe into being? You wouldn't agree that some sort of independent, outside force caused an event to occur. I'm looking past my own beliefs in the "old-earth"/"new earth" argument and meeting you more in your arena.

From basic creation to the result of Jesus establishing His church. How do you as an atheist dismiss all of the documented evidence of His resurrection? First, you have several independent accounts found in the Bible that we circulated at a time when those opposed were still alive. If the documents were shared after witnesses were gone, this would be more explainable. But anyone could have called the accounts to task by saying they were there and it didn't happen. Jesus' disciples were tortured and executed for there unwaivering faith. Today people die all the time for faith as in Islam. But these people would have known they were dying for a lie, because they witnessed it first hand. Does that seem logical? Jesus was beaten, nailed to a cross an stabbed with a sword, yet he appeared well enough to convince them he rose.
 
mjjcb said:
I'm going to pose a new set of questions to our atheist friends.
Hello, and good to meet you. I'll have a go.

A basic question on the universe and evolution. Every action has a cause. I can think of nothing that occurs without something causing it to happen. That said, what is your most logical reason for the universe coming in to existence? What was the impetus for your Big Bang? From an atheistic perspective, there was nothing that caused itself to establish everything. Is it more reasonable for you to assume that "nothing" caused all of the universe into being? You wouldn't agree that some sort of independent, outside force caused an event to occur.
I think the only answer I can give you there is that I don't know. If the big bang theory is correct, the universe in the instant it began was a singularity, infinitely tiny and infinitely dense. We do know that in quantum mechanics, the science of the very small, our common sense ideas about logic and cause/effect don't fully hold. And we only have one big bang that we can study, so it's very hard to draw conclusions about how such things work. As hard as if Newton only got to see that one apple.

How do you as an atheist dismiss all of the documented evidence of His resurrection? First, you have several independent accounts found in the Bible that we circulated at a time when those opposed were still alive.
Only John claims to contain an eyewitness account. All four accounts are in conflict on the finer details. All are anonymous and written many years after the event. It certainly wouldn't stand up in court.

If the documents were shared after witnesses were gone, this would be more explainable. But anyone could have called the accounts to task by saying they were there and it didn't happen.
An overwhelming majority of biblical scholars say Mark is the earliest gospel and date it to the early 70s. That means a contemporary of Jesus would be in their 70s at the time of writing and life expectancy then wasn’t what it is today. The other gospels are even later.

Jesus' disciples were tortured and executed for there unwaivering faith. Today people die all the time for faith as in Islam. But these people would have known they were dying for a lie, because they witnessed it first hand. Does that seem logical? Jesus was beaten, nailed to a cross an stabbed with a sword, yet he appeared well enough to convince them he rose.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the earliest Christians. I do question whether those who knew Jesus in life would recognize the resurrection as described in the gospels.
 
@ivdavid

Same here. I do not intend to convert or impose. Just sharing my views.

I don't see it as contradictory. By relative, I mean that you morality and such, including what is evil, is partly based on those around you and not absolutes. That being said, some things remain consistently evil. Murder is usually considered bad (though some cultures don't see human sacrifice as murder). Genocide is also usually considered bad. Occasionally, a certain culture will see genocide as right. But how many times are those instances justified after the act has occurred? Hitler wasn't excused for his actions, nor what is going on in Darfur right now.
To clarify, I don't believe in absolute morals, but some things remain consistently seen as bad or good by different cultures.
I didn't mean to imply that morals are absolute because that isn't my stance, just that some things remain consistent.

And just because morals are relative, doesn't mean I won't criticize someone else's morals if I don't agree with them. I have the right to criticize anything and everything.

I've heard that argument. It is good because God (says it) is good. I don't make an appeal to authority though. I have a brain, so I'll use it to determine what is good and bad (again by what I think).

But that's the thing, nothing is perfect. And who defines perfect anyways? That's like trying to define what/who is normal. I know the Bible says God is perfect, but I'm not going to be convinced because a book written 2000 years ago said it.

I'm not going to comment much on the Satan part because I'm only vaguely familiar with the story. I will say this though. If Satan fell to Hell, what is keeping the rest of the souls that go up there from falling to Hell (eventually) as well? Wouldn't that mean that eventually everyone ends up at Hell?

If I was a Christian, the paragraph about sin would make perfect sense. However, I don't believe in sin because I don't believe in God. I understand you viewpoint, but I disagree with pretty much everything that has to do with sin. So it's probably best to leave this here as I doubt either of our minds will be changed. Unless you want to hear more about my view on it.

There is no freedom of will if God knows all and is all powerful. To know all is to know everything, including the future. If he knows the future, then he knows the choices we will make.

Also, dangling an eternal punishment before you and just forcing you into a position where you have to choose him or perish is not free will. That is called a scare tactic.

Why doesn't he teach us how to worship him and obey his will before we come into this world? Or do souls just pop into existence at conception/ sometime in pregnancy? I'm not sure of the viewpoint on that.

Why doesn't he go ahead and eradicate evil? What's he waiting for? Why is his will to prolong suffering and sin here on Earth?

Well, personally, I believe in second chances, for pretty much everything. People can learn form their mistakes. Not everyone does, but some can. I know many who then accept him if they had actual evidence of his existence and didn't have to base it on pure faith.

And we can't learn that in Heaven because...? It's be but a small matter to send those that disobey to Hell.

I can tell you that prayer didn't change me one bit... I think whether it changes you or not is your perception of what happened and how strong of faith you have. I don't think faith in that way is a good thing, by the way.

Let me rephrase. I don't see how sinning automatically makes you evil. Since humans are imperfect, we are obviously going to make mistakes, and to make a mistake is pretty much sinning. (like trying drugs is a mistake for many).

I don't see how that is a sacrifice either. It seems to me that God/Jesus would want to know what it is like to be one of us, personal experience of it. And the suffering on Earth is supposedly nothing compared to Hell. And it is still only a finite amount of suffering while people that go to Hell go their for eternity. There's no real price there, or a very small one at that.
And why did that even need to be done in the first place? God couldn't do that with just a snap of his fingers (figuratively speaking)? He's supposed to be all-powerful, right?

Obviously, everything is going to fall short of an all-perfect God... And I disagree, there is no all good, or all evil. Like yin and yang.
That seems illogical to me. Just because someone doesn't follow God doesn't make them evil. What about someone who has never heard of God? Yes, that person could be doing it for self-pride, but there are many who do it selflessly, Christians and non-Christians.

I see obedience to a parent just because they are your parent as illogical (same for respect). There need to be reasons behind actions, and if they aren't explained to me, I usually "rebel" (or just keep asking why annoying the heck out of my parents). Luckily, my mom explained most of her choices for me, why something was good/bad, etc. And I do respect and do as she asks.
To tell a little boy to stop eating cookies all together serves no real purpose, and I wouldn't blame the kid for wanting a cookie. But we have different standards for who deserves respect/authority etc.

No, God doesn't do that here, punishment. If he made it clear that it is a punishment to all and made his presence known (at least to that person) then they would have reason to think something is a punishment. Otherwise, and this is my opinion, things happen as reactions to what others have done/ nature patterns and environments. No God needed for that in my view.
God judging you as a bad person is the judgment, not the sentence. Hell is the punishment for not doing what he commanded and Heaven is the reward.

For the last one, I refer to what kpd said.

It did provide discussion. I hope you can continue to answer my questions about you beliefs and don't get offended if I may have said something.
 
LBob, I have got to learn the trick of long posts. Can you share? My screen starts stammering when I get to a certain point. I need a demo-site to troll around for a while, so I don't look lime my mother when I post. I can't figure out multiple quoting, and quoting your whole reply is too long for me. Ug!

I'd like to go deeper into your story. It does seem odd to me that an atheist, who has no hope for any lasting significance, would devote the time you have to proving theism wrong. What would drive such a person to devote such time to a purpose that has no lasting value? I know why I'm here, but I don't understand why you would be. Although, I'm glad you are! I've read a number of your posts and realize I'm a simpleton compared to Logical Bob.

When you say that only one book provides the perspective of a first hand account, which of them are you referring to? The Gospel of John? 1 James? 2 James? 1 Peter? 2 Peter? 1 John? 2 John? 3 John? Revelation?

Maybe you were referring to those who were written with the pen of an assistant but the voice of ones Matthew and Mark. Would it mean less if their hands didn't control the pen? Me? No. Ultimately their accounts come from those who walked and witnessed His life and thereafter. I know you have plenty of examples when you refer to discrepancies, so could you provide some specifics?

You didn't provide your belief in the origin of our universe (or I didn't glean it), so my purpose in posing the question failed. umf...ran out of space! I'll leave it here.
 
mjjcb said:
New to the boards and much to come up to speed with. I'm sorry to previous posters, but I'm going to pose a new set of questions to our atheist friends. These might be old, done questions, but they will help me in establishing where you are coming from.

Hi, I'm new here too and I can say that so far this forum is top notch. For me, there's plenty to learn.

mjjcb said:
A basic question on the universe and evolution. Every action has a cause. I can think of nothing that occurs without something causing it to happen. That said, what is your most logical reason for the universe coming in to existence? What was the impetus for your Big Bang? From an atheistic perspective, there was nothing that caused itself to establish everything. Is it more reasonable for you to assume that "nothing" caused all of the universe into being? You wouldn't agree that some sort of independent, outside force caused an event to occur. I'm looking past my own beliefs in the "old-earth"/"new earth" argument and meeting you more in your arena.

The big bang isn't the enigma it used to be for science. You've probably heard of the open and flat universe theories and now there's a flat universe theory.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

What this means is pretty amazing.

In a recent article for the New Scientist publication, there is an interesting scientific explanation to the famous (albeit rather theological) question posed by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Answer, if the universe is flat, then its energy is zero, so it could have been born from nothing.

I've read some more recently on this theory but I can't find the source. Apparently the net energy of the universe is zero which means it literally came from nothing but also if we consider quantum fluctuations in the "nothing" that it came from, the universe had to come into existence.

mjjcb said:
From basic creation to the result of Jesus establishing His church. How do you as an atheist dismiss all of the documented evidence of His resurrection? First, you have several independent accounts found in the Bible that we circulated at a time when those opposed were still alive. If the documents were shared after witnesses were gone, this would be more explainable. But anyone could have called the accounts to task by saying they were there and it didn't happen. Jesus' disciples were tortured and executed for there unwaivering faith. Today people die all the time for faith as in Islam. But these people would have known they were dying for a lie, because they witnessed it first hand. Does that seem logical? Jesus was beaten, nailed to a cross an stabbed with a sword, yet he appeared well enough to convince them he rose.

Have you heard of Sathya Sai Baba? He's an indian guru with 6 million followers all over the world ten years ago and who knows how many today. He performs many of the miracles attributed to Jesus on a weekly basis in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses. He had a birthday party several years ago and a million people showed up. To many of his followers this man is a god so why doesn't he rate a news spot on CNN? Why is it that this same scenario two thousand years ago in illiterate, iron age palestine is so believable? So believable that hundreds of millions of people would arrange their lives around it today? Who would think that a religion with 13 million followers could be founded in the middle of the 19th century by a man named Joseph Smith? I can only think that most people need to believe in a god of some kind. I could speculate all day about why the need for a god but just ask yourself what you get out of believing in God. I wonder how many scientologists are running around these days exorcising alien spirits from their bodies? Given peoples apparent propensity to fall into any old religion that comes their way it's a wonder every person on the planet isn't a christian by now if it's the one "true" religion.

All the best.
 
Back
Top