Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Kill 'em with Kindness

Questions for a Christian?

Posted on: September 11, 2007 - 10:35pm
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Questions for a Christian?

Got any? When I say questions I mean doctrinal questions. Like "why does God allow epole to starve" or "explain you wacky view of three Gods in one"....not science stuff and not debate stuff. This is for people who would actually like to learn more about the people they have come to disagree with. I don't want this to be a debate...just Q & A. Later I will post a questions for athiest topic, where I will ask you questions and you will answer them for me...no debates, just Q & A.

 

So, any questions???????

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon

‹ A genuine, non-yelling, kind and good-natured discussion of God Catholic Church conspiracy ›

Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 7:52pm #51
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
fish wrote:

[MOD EDIT - removed duplicate post]


Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 8:04pm #52
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Crossover

Susan wrote:
Crossover wrote:

 

First, God created man to glorify Him. Why did he create us with the forknowlege that we would sin (not only that, but with the forknowlege of knowing whom he would choose to save!)? My personal belief is that God did that because that glorifies Him more. Christians dont (or shouldnt) say that God is merciful for creating us...but rather he is merciful for offering us a way of salvation. I can only say that God sees that He can get more glory out of the way He did it than any other way.

Am I understanding this correctly?

You believe the god created man just so he would have someone to glorify and worship him?

That sounds pretty arrogant and self-centered to me.

The only analogy I can think of is someone having children for the sole purpose of keeping the children focused only on obeying and worshipping the parents. 

That would be a good recipe for kids that need therapy for years. 

Well, your post seems pretty arrogant and self centered to me! It sounds like you are saying "wow, that almighty God is really stuck up" when you yourself are but a lowly person. Who are you to question God. It really isnt' until you come to see the full glory of God that you really see that God deserves it.

To a human that seems arrogant, because as we have come to understand a hero, he is humble. People often tend to categorize God in that hero category due to the great things is is said to have done. The main difference is that God is not a man, and thus the quality of humility isn't required of him. The emotional and spiritual qualitites that humans value, are those that God commanded us to have (humility, love, etc.) While God is love...he does not require Himself to be humle. Why would He? He is all powerful.

 

Soi really, yes, god is "arrogant"...but not in the negative context. he is only as arrogant as he deseres to be.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 8:25pm #53
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What is a spirit?

Quote:

What is a spirit? If a spirit has no material substance, what kind of substance does it have? In what sense can it be said to exist? What is the difference between a being that does not exist and one that has no material substance?

That is a tough question. I'm sure there is some scientific something or another to explain it...but I dont know it, so I'll give you a theologic take on that. A being that does not exist has no attributes.

 

Quote:

How is it possible to perform any action without having different states? I think you (and indeed any reasonable person) will find this problem insurmountable. An unchangeable thing cannot (by definition!) interact with anything in the universe.

That is illigical. Explain your point more and maybe I'll get it, but as stated, your point is illogical.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 9:16pm #54
Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Susan

Crossover wrote:
Susan wrote:
Crossover wrote:

 

First, God created man to glorify Him. Why did he create us with the forknowlege that we would sin (not only that, but with the forknowlege of knowing whom he would choose to save!)? My personal belief is that God did that because that glorifies Him more. Christians dont (or shouldnt) say that God is merciful for creating us...but rather he is merciful for offering us a way of salvation. I can only say that God sees that He can get more glory out of the way He did it than any other way.

Am I understanding this correctly?

You believe the god created man just so he would have someone to glorify and worship him?

That sounds pretty arrogant and self-centered to me.

The only analogy I can think of is someone having children for the sole purpose of keeping the children focused only on obeying and worshipping the parents.

That would be a good recipe for kids that need therapy for years.

Well, your post seems pretty arrogant and self centered to me! It sounds like you are saying "wow, that almighty God is really stuck up" when you yourself are but a lowly person. Who are you to question God. It really isnt' until you come to see the full glory of God that you really see that God deserves it.

That isn't what I said at all.  I didn't say anything about any "lowly people".  And if you meant that I'm a lowly person, I take a bit of offense.  (By the way, this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.  No insults to other posters is allowed.)

I'm trying to see if I understood you correctly.

What I understood you to say is that you believe that god created man so he would have someone to glorify and worship him. 

Again, I quote you:

Crossover wrote:
First, God created man to glorify Him.

Sorry.  My analogy stands. 

 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 9:50pm #55
deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

That is illigical. Explain your point more and maybe I'll get it, but as stated, your point is illogical.

I beg to differ. His point is perfectly concise and accurate. If you wish to see it stretched out into 8000 words (maybe you will then understand), then read this piece by me:

on_the_problem_of_interaction_and_the_concluding_piece_of_the_series_the_absurdity_of_an_immaterial_mind

Where I successfully reduce the concept of God to the absurd

 

[MOD EDIT - removed beginning of URL in link to shorten length of page] 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Posted on: September 18, 2007 - 5:15pm #56
Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Kemono

Crossover wrote:

Kemono wrote:

How is it possible to perform any action without having different states? I think you (and indeed any reasonable person) will find this problem insurmountable. An unchangeable thing cannot (by definition!) interact with anything in the universe.

That is illigical. Explain your point more and maybe I'll get it, but as stated, your point is illogical.

There is nothing illogical about it. If a thing is always in the same state, it is obviously not doing anything. Interaction is called interaction for a reason. If A changes the state of B, the state of A must change as well. This is an obvious implication of the conservation of momentum.

One should also note that perception, thought and emotion are impossible for an unchanging thing because no external event can affect it in any way (and it has no internal events as they would constitute change).


Posted on: September 18, 2007 - 5:38pm #57
Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

on_the_problem_of_interaction_and_the_concluding_piece_of_the_series_the_absurdity_of_an_immaterial_mind

Thanks for the link; I had somehow missed that one. I enjoyed the essay very much and I highly recommend it to Crossover.


Posted on: September 18, 2007 - 6:06pm #58
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: shikko

Crossover wrote:

shikko wrote:

Woah, there. So do you get to decide who's a Christian and who isn't? If not, who does?

No. But just look at the facts, folks are going to claim to be Christian when they really aren't. It's even in the Bible.

Okay, so is it also in the bible as to what makes a "true" Christian? Are there also instructions or some kind of test in the bible as to how "true" Christians can tell other "true" Christians from the pretenders?

Quote:
Quote:

Are you talking about you, atheists or both in this sentence?

Both. Though some athiests don' like to think of putting faith i nanything, the way I see it we all put faith in things...just different ones.

You are already involved in a few conversations about how saying atheists have faith is unsound, so I won't get into that line.

Quote:

Quote:

So when you pray for something and it doesn't happen, why is that? Are you a believer in the "three answers to prayer" explanation? Does intent in prayer affect the outcome?

What do you think will happen if you prayed for the severed limb of an amputee to be made whole?

I do believe that intent is the entire key to prayer. Some one who is close to God and is asking for something to happen not for his own sake, but for the sake of glofying God, then he shall recieve. However, some one who enters a prayer selfishly and asks God fo a new house, isn't really praying to God so taht God may get His glory, he is praying to God so that he can get what he wants. If we know the scriptures cleary, there are certain things we KNOW not to ask for.

A homeless person's prayers for food and shelter will go unanswered, but Warren Buffet's prayer for more people to love one another (e.g.), will be? Hmm. Why does God only answer prayers that please him as opposed to answering prayers that may directly help someone in need?

Quote:

Ahh, what would happen if I prayed for the severed limb of an amputee to be made whole. Well, if you look at the my last paragraph here, you will see. What would I really be asking if I were to ask God to heal an amputee? I would be asking one of two things..."God, prove yourself to me, cause everything else you've done isn't enough." or "God, make this guys physical life better...who cares about his spiritual well being."

Now, if you wanted to ask why doesn't God heal amputees, there are a million different answers I could give you...all of which I believe, and all of which I think to be true based on my knowlege of God and scripture. But, no one can give you a deffinative answer on that because who knows why God doesn't do something?

And to the last question, I would refer you to the following posts.

So we can know why God does some things (answers prayers that further his glory), but not why he will not do others (stop suffering)? Why are there conditions on who and how God will help?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 12:19am #59
Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Well, I'm

Crossover wrote:
Well, I'm not saying I KNOW He created the world through his creation. That is partially it, but the circular arguement is totaly unrelated to god creating the wrold. The question was "how does this show His glory?" It's like asking "how can I see the glory of DaVinci?"...through his art, and inventions, and everything else the guy did.

As for the "how do I know..." I answered that in other posts to you. You've asked it and I've ansered it.

I am very lost. I looked through all your posts and can't find where you explained why you think thath god created the world. If you could even cut and paste it, I would appreciate it.

I guess I should also qualifiy that statement. In addition to whatever you said before, are there any things that you could show someone else (that is, not just personal feelings) that lead you to believe that god created the world?

Crossover wrote:
But yes, it DOES take faith to believe in science and numbers. It isn't a divine faith, but yes it is a faith.

What is divine faith?

How is it different from regular faith?

How does it take faith to believe in science and "numbers"?

Crossover wrote:
Niether A nor B. I did not change God's mind, and He did not do it free from me. I refer you back to my R.C. Sproul quote earlier where he said "God not only ordains the ends, but He ordainsthe means." Put simply, God saysthis will happen, and heres how. God said "he'll be saved" and "he'll pray for me to soften his heart." Some Christians (Arminians) disagree with that and would say yes to part a. And say that God "looked through time and saw that I would pray so he saved my friend."

Let me see if I understand:

God makes you pray to ask god to do something, and then god does that (if he wants).

Is that correct?

Crossover wrote:

Fish wrote:

How do you know that your faith is more valid than everone else's?

By what do you mean "my faith". Do you mean "the Christian faith" or my personal faith more valid than another Christians? Well, I will asnwer them both.

Let me clarify and rephrase my question:

Other people have faith in god. Some of those gods are different gods. Some of those gods have been around longer (historically) than your god. Aside from your personal feelings, are there any things that convince you that your beliefs are correct while theirs are not?

As an example:

If I say Bob is a nice person, and you say he's not, I could point out that he gives 50% of his income to chairties for the poor, and this could support my claim independent of my feelings or your feelings or anyone else's feelings.


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 11:17am #60
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: That isn't

Susan wrote:

That isn't what I said at all. I didn't say anything about any "lowly people". And if you meant that I'm a lowly person, I take a bit of offense. (By the way, this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum. No insults to other posters is allowed.)

I'm trying to see if I understood you correctly.

What I understood you to say is that you believe that god created man so he would have someone to glorify and worship him.

Again, I quote you:

Crossover wrote:
First, God created man to glorify Him.

Sorry. My analogy stands.

 

 

 

 

Saying you are a lowly person isn't an insult! Feel free to check out my other posts where I say the same about myself. Because, as I am stating beliefs in this forum, we are all but finit people called to worship an infinite God. It's not an insult at all.

 

YES! God created man to glorify Him. There's no geting away from that. That's one belief that most all Christian agree on 

 

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 11:28am #61
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: Okay, so is

shikko wrote:

Okay, so is it also in the bible as to what makes a "true" Christian? Are there also instructions or some kind of test in the bible as to how "true" Christians can tell other "true" Christians from the pretenders?

 

Yes. Jesus says you will know His true followers by their fruits. Earlier in this topic I explain that.

Quote:

A homeless person's prayers for food and shelter will go unanswered, but Warren Buffet's prayer for more people to love one another (e.g.), will be? Hmm. Why does God only answer prayers that please him as opposed to answering prayers that may directly help someone in need?

You found a loop inmy earlier post. The Bible does say that those who call out to Him in love will have their prayers answered. It also says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get in heaven. So, to show what I mean in my other posts I will use your analogy.

If a homeless man asks for food and shelter, he may or may not get it right then...but if he is humbly going to God asking for help, it is my understanding that God wil have emrcy on him. NOW, if Warren Buffet asks for more money, he may or may not ge tit, but when he dies God will not have mercy on him.

 

But ultimately yes, it is whatever God wants.

 

 

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 7:08pm #62
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What is divine

Quote:

What is divine faith?

How is it different from regular faith?

How does it take faith to believe in science and "numbers"?

First, divine faith is not a proper theological term tomy knowlege...so don't go quoting that. I say divine faith meaning faith given to a person by God. Faith is a gift from God.

It is different because regular faith isn't..a) saving faith, or b) a gift from God

 

When I talk about faith in science and numbers, do not think I am talking about faith related to God in any way. Faith, by definition is "something that is believed; complete trust". Tell me, as an athiest do you not believe in science and numbers over God? Do you not put your trust in that? I put my trust in God, you put your trust in science.

 

Quote:

Let me see if I understand:

God makes you pray to ask god to do something, and then god does that (if he wants).

Is that correct?

to me the role of people in prayer is one of the most complicated issues in Christianity. So its hard for ME to sum it up...but I shal try.

God commands us to pray...yes. Does He command us to pray for people, or things...NO. He commands us to pray to Him so that we may come closer to him, and we may worship Him.

 

 

Quote:

Let me clarify and rephrase my question:

Other people have faith in god. Some of those gods are different gods. Some of those gods have been around longer (historically) than your god. Aside from your personal feelings, are there any things that convince you that your beliefs are correct while theirs are not?

As an example:

If I say Bob is a nice person, and you say he's not, I could point out that he gives 50% of his income to chairties for the poor, and this could support my claim independent of my feelings or your feelings or anyone else's feelings.

Well, first let me say that no belief is older than the Christian faith, assuming you date it back to the Jews also. It's basically a tie because all of them go back to the begining of the word.

 

But, its all really a matter of how I have come to understand God. That falls under the "my relationshpi with God" category which seems to be a grey area on here. Is there any concrete evidene that I can give that says "Islam is wrong"...not really.

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 2:03pm #63
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: shikko

Crossover wrote:

shikko wrote:

Okay, so is it also in the bible as to what makes a "true" Christian? Are there also instructions or some kind of test in the bible as to how "true" Christians can tell other "true" Christians from the pretenders?

Yes. Jesus says you will know His true followers by their fruits. Earlier in this topic I explain that.

So what are the fruits by which his true followers will be known? Does anyone who makes these fruits qualify as a "true" Christian, or is there some other requirement?

Quote:

Quote:

A homeless person's prayers for food and shelter will go unanswered, but Warren Buffet's prayer for more people to love one another (e.g.), will be? Hmm. Why does God only answer prayers that please him as opposed to answering prayers that may directly help someone in need?

You found a loop inmy earlier post. The Bible does say that those who call out to Him in love will have their prayers answered. It also says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get in heaven. So, to show what I mean in my other posts I will use your analogy.

If a homeless man asks for food and shelter, he may or may not get it right then...but if he is humbly going to God asking for help, it is my understanding that God wil have emrcy on him. NOW, if Warren Buffet asks for more money, he may or may not ge tit, but when he dies God will not have mercy on him.

But ultimately yes, it is whatever God wants.

So when someone, regardless of who it is, prays for something, regardless of what it is, and it doesn't happen, it's because God either didn't want it to happen, or God wants the current state of things to be as they are?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 7:17pm #64
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: So what are

shikko wrote:

So what are the fruits by which his true followers will be known? Does anyone who makes these fruits qualify as a "true" Christian, or is there some other requirement?

OOPs. I made a mistake. Its one fruit, severalthings. The fruit of the spiri is "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control."Its probably unesecary to explain why its fruit and not frutis though.

Quote:

So when someone, regardless of who it is, prays for something, regardless of what it is, and it doesn't happen, it's because God either didn't want it to happen, or God wants the current state of things to be as they are?

Basically becaue God wants....why He wants is no concern to me...who am I to question God?

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 19, 2007 - 8:04pm #65
Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: When I

Crossover wrote:

When I talk about faith in science and numbers, do not think I am talking about faith related to God in any way. Faith, by definition is "something that is believed; complete trust". Tell me, as an athiest do you not believe in science and numbers over God? Do you not put your trust in that? I put my trust in God, you put your trust in science.

Do you prefer driving a car or riding a unicorn?

Personally, I do no believe in science and "numbers" over god, as there is nothing to compare to.

Have you ever flown in an airplane? I would say that it a demonstration of your faith in science and "numbers," but I suppose that you might answer that it's god who is holding the plane up. To that I would have no response.

Do I believe that science is capable of expanding human knowledge and developing new technologies? Yes. The reason why is because I have seen it done.

Do I believe that god is capable of expanding human knowledge, developing new technologies, or doing anything constructive whatsoever? No. I have never seen such an event.

Do I have a "complete trust" in science and "numbers"? No. There are many things that people still do not know. There are many things that may never be known. There are many things that we still cannot do, and there are many things that we may never be able to do.

I don't see how this is a choice of putting faith in one thing or the other. Believing that science works doesn't require faith. It can be demonstrated. Anyone could show you that it works. There are third parties that can verify it. That is not faith.

Crossover wrote:
God commands us to pray...yes. Does He command us to pray for people, or things...NO. He commands us to pray to Him so that we may come closer to him, and we may worship Him.

Could you explain this concept in relation to your example?

So god commanded you to pray for your friend?

Did you pray to help your friend, or did you pray to be closer to god?

If you prayed to help your friend, how does that make you closer to god? It can't be that you are doing god's work, because then you would be the one that saved your friend, but you've already told me that you didn't.

I guess the main thing that confuses me is: why does god need people to pray?

Crossover wrote:
Well, first let me say that no belief is older than the Christian faith, assuming you date it back to the Jews also. It's basically a tie because all of them go back to the begining of the word.

Judaism originated around 2000 B.C.E. with moses, right?

The Egyptian religion began closer to 3000 B.C.E., so I think that it would be incorrect to say that Christianity is the oldest faith, especially considering all the other religions in Africa and Aisa that existed as well.


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 12:39pm #66
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: "First,

Crossover wrote:

"First, divine faith is not a proper theological term tomy knowlege...so don't go quoting that. I say divine faith meaning faith given to a person by God. Faith is a gift from God.

It is different because regular faith isn't..a) saving faith, or b) a gift from God"

So God gives you faith after you believe in him (the gift of God), before you believe in him so you can (saving faith) or both?

I've read many different views on this, what's yours? 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 2:05pm #67
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: shikko

Crossover wrote:

shikko wrote:

So what are the fruits by which his true followers will be known? Does anyone who makes these fruits qualify as a "true" Christian, or is there some other requirement?

OOPs. I made a mistake. Its one fruit, severalthings. The fruit of the spiri is "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control."Its probably unesecary to explain why its fruit and not frutis though.

That seems pretty clear. So people who act in accordance with those virtues or believe that those virtues should be the guiding rules of their life are true followers of Christ? What about people that act this way who have never heard of Christ, and therefore cannot possibly have accepted him as their saviour? In short, is it the acts that lead to salvation regardless of belief, or does belief in Christ lead to salvation, regardless of acts? Or do you need both, or something else?

Quote:

 

Quote:

So when someone, regardless of who it is, prays for something, regardless of what it is, and it doesn't happen, it's because God either didn't want it to happen, or God wants the current state of things to be as they are?

Basically becaue God wants....why He wants is no concern to me...who am I to question God?

Okay, so things happen or do not because that's what God wants, in your opinion. That seems really, well, dangerous to me.

As to your question; masters have obligations to their servants, and always have. Even in one of the most barbarous times in human history, vassals and peasants could expect their lord to protect them in times of danger. That means there are responsibilities that God has towards his followers, and given that the powers of the big-L Lord in this case (and the lord's requirements of his followers) are so much greater than the little-L lord in my example, the responsibilities should go way further than simple shelter in time of war. Is that not so?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 4:54pm #68
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Crossover, if it was clear

Crossover, if it was clear that god had proved himself, we wopuldn't be having this discussion.

In fact, most of us might well be theists afterward. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 5:34pm #69
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
fish wrote: Do you prefer

fish wrote:

Do you prefer driving a car or riding a unicorn?

Cheap shot at the Christian faith. Maybe you should rephrase that question to be "do you prefer trusting a savior or turning you back on him?" That would take out the insinuation that is in this question, which is clearly that god is nothing more than a fictional character. 

Quote:

I don't see how this is a choice of putting faith in one thing or the other. Believing that science works doesn't require faith. It can be demonstrated. Anyone could show you that it works. There are third parties that can verify it. That is not faith.


 NOTE: What I am about to say I will say to give you a look through the lens I am looking through. NO ONE can twist it to say Iam threatening you with hell. If anyone does I can only say to you get over yourselves, I have better things to do than threaten you.

 

You aren't putting your faith in it because you see it works. I see science and numbers work. You are being shortsited about the "faith" thing. You put your "faith" in science and numbers and the idea that they are greater than the idea of a higher power. I say you put your faith in that because when you die (perhaps sooner) you will realize that you did not put your faith in god, but rather that you put your faith in numbers. you relied on science to get you through. That when god was mentioned you automatically blocked that idea out because of what you think of science.

Quote:

Could you explain this concept in relation to your example?

So god commanded you to pray for your friend?

Did you pray to help your friend, or did you pray to be closer to god?

If you prayed to help your friend, how does that make you closer to god? It can't be that you are doing god's work, because then you would be the one that saved your friend, but you've already told me that you didn't.

I guess the main thing that confuses me is: why does god need people to pray?

You're getting the example and the command confused. no, god does not command me to pray for my friend. That is something I do out of compassion for him, as a personal thing. Yes, God does command us to pray to worship him, and get closer to Him.

 

I can not explain why God needs us to pray. however, I would refer you the the book of Psalms, becausethat is the best explination of prayer...even though it is a bunch of prayers. Ya aint gotta read the whole book (heck, its LONG). But if you want your question answered see how David prays in the first few chapters. go to biblegateway.com and search psalms...NIV translation.

Quote:

Judaism originated around 2000 B.C.E. with moses, right?

The Egyptian religion began closer to 3000 B.C.E., so I think that it would be incorrect to say that Christianity is the oldest faith, especially considering all the other religions in Africa and Aisa that existed as well.

No. I'm not saying that Christianity is the oldest...Im saying they all claim to date back to the begining of the world so no religion can claim to be older than the other. Manuscipts found aren't an accurate measurement becauswe manuscripts havent been found, and alot (especially Christian/Jewish documents) were destroyed. 

 

 

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 5:44pm #70
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: So people

shikko wrote:

So people who act in accordance with those virtues or believe that those virtues should be the guiding rules of their life are true followers of Christ? What about people that act this way who have never heard of Christ, and therefore cannot possibly have accepted him as their saviour? In short, is it the acts that lead to salvation regardless of belief, or does belief in Christ lead to salvation, regardless of acts? Or do you need both, or something else?

those fruits are evidence of salvation. If you are saved then those fruits must be produced. You CAN NOT be saved by your works, no matter what...but if you are saved your works will reflect it.

 

As far as people who have never heard of Christ...they can fit all of the frutis except one. Faithfulness in this verse means faithfulness to god...which nonbelievers can not have.

 

Quote:

As to your question; masters have obligations to their servants, and always have. Even in one of the most barbarous times in human history, vassals and peasants could expect their lord to protect them in times of danger. That means there are responsibilities that God has towards his followers, and given that the powers of the big-L Lord in this case (and the lord's requirements of his followers) are so much greater than the little-L lord in my example, the responsibilities should go way further than simple shelter in time of war. Is that not so?

It's Gods will. If it seems as if god have forsaken a follower at any time, He hasn't. See, you are right and you are wrong. More right than wrong though.

 

See, God doesn't have a responsability to us....we have a responsability to Him. BUT, he garauntees us that He will not forsake us and he will help us. As far as times that are troubling, god is putting us through those times to help us...the sun shines birghter after the storm has passed. he rewards those who are faithful through tough times. 

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 5:52pm #71
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Crossover

jcgadfly wrote:

Crossover wrote:

"First, divine faith is not a proper theological term tomy knowlege...so don't go quoting that. I say divine faith meaning faith given to a person by God. Faith is a gift from God.

It is different because regular faith isn't..a) saving faith, or b) a gift from God"

Both A and B. Saving faith is a gift from God.

Quote:

So God gives you faith after you believe in him (the gift of God), before you believe in him so you can (saving faith) or both?

I've read many different views on this, what's yours

God gives you everything. He gives a desire to follow Him. I believe God gives you taht faith when you believe in Him. The moment of conversion. THOUGH, I believe it was chosen before the world was made who would recieve this gift and when and how and everything.

 

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 5:56pm #72
latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    The oldest still

    The oldest still practiced religion if i recall correctly is Hinduism, which is about 1000 years older than judaism. As such if your going to say that age makes it correct, then crossover your wrong, dead wrong, and are screwed, for worshipping the WRONG god. At least using that arguement that you said of age of christianity and judaism.


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 6:16pm #73
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: jcgadfly

Crossover wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Crossover wrote:

"First, divine faith is not a proper theological term tomy knowlege...so don't go quoting that. I say divine faith meaning faith given to a person by God. Faith is a gift from God.

It is different because regular faith isn't..a) saving faith, or b) a gift from God"

Both A and B. Saving faith is a gift from God.

Quote:

So God gives you faith after you believe in him (the gift of God), before you believe in him so you can (saving faith) or both?

I've read many different views on this, what's yours

God gives you everything. He gives a desire to follow Him. I believe God gives you taht faith when you believe in Him. The moment of conversion. THOUGH, I believe it was chosen before the world was made who would recieve this gift and when and how and everything.

 

 

 I see. You believe in predestination and not freewill.

It opens up other questions, though.

1) How do you know for sure that your one of the lucky ones that God has accepted?

2) It's unbiblical - check John 12:32, 2 Peter 3:9. Does "all" in those passages really not mean "all"?

3) Your concept also implies that God was slime enough to intentionally create the majority of the planet for the sole purpose of populating hell. That doesn't square with Scripture either, as far as I can tell. It's also not a God worthy of worship in my opinion.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 7:18pm #74
Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: fish

Crossover wrote:

fish wrote:

Do you prefer driving a car or riding a unicorn?

Cheap shot at the Christian faith. Maybe you should rephrase that question to be "do you prefer trusting a savior or turning you back on him?" That would take out the insinuation that is in this question, which is clearly that god is nothing more than a fictional character.

You are incorrect.

Until you can answer my question as stated, how can you expect me to answer your question about choosing science over god?

The question "do you prefer trusting a savior or turning you back on him?" would be an improper restatement, as it requires already accepting the existence of a "savior." Both the actions of trusting him and turning your back on him require that he be there in the first place. In my question you already know a car exists, so it is a comparison of the known to the unknown.

Crossover wrote:
You aren't putting your faith in it because you see it works. I see science and numbers work. You are being shortsited about the "faith" thing. You put your "faith" in science and numbers and the idea that they are greater than the idea of a higher power. I say you put your faith in that because when you die (perhaps sooner) you will realize that you did not put your faith in god, but rather that you put your faith in numbers. you relied on science to get you through. That when god was mentioned you automatically blocked that idea out because of what you think of science.

You are again mistaken.

Science makes no claims as to what happens after death, therefore it is impossible for anyone to have faith in science in regard to that question. I am not putting my faith in science any more than you are.

Here is my second question: 

What makes you think that there aren't any unicorns?


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 9:23pm #75
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:    

latincanuck wrote:
    The oldest still practiced religion if i recall correctly is Hinduism, which is about 1000 years older than judaism. As such if your going to say that age makes it correct, then crossover your wrong, dead wrong, and are screwed, for worshipping the WRONG god. At least using that arguement that you said of age of christianity and judaism.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing. WEll, really I wasn't. i'm simply saying that based on religous beliefs ALL relgions date to the same time. Creation. I'm not saying that since Judaism or Christianity is old that they are right. I suggest you read everything before you tell me I'm wrong.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 9:53pm #76
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I see. You

jcgadfly wrote:

I see. You believe in predestination and not freewill.

It opens up other questions, though.

1) How do you know for sure that your one of the lucky ones that God has accepted?

2) It's unbiblical - check John 12:32, 2 Peter 3:9. Does "all" in those passages really not mean "all"?

3) Your concept also implies that God was slime enough to intentionally create the majority of the planet for the sole purpose of populating hell. That doesn't square with Scripture either, as far as I can tell. It's also not a God worthy of worship in my opinion.

1) 1 Peter 2:4-12

2) Actually, predestination is the most Biblical position I can see. As far as "all goes"...The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

And I assume you like to at least read some Biblical texts since you poste dsome...so I will support predestination beyond a shadow of a doubt using the Bible. REad the verses I post and see if you even THINK predestination isn't Biblical.

Ephesians 1, Romans 8:29-30, Hebrews 5:4, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Peter 1:3, Jude 1:1, Romans 9:16

 

3) NO NO NO. Predestination NEVER condemned a single soul. People condemn themselves. Sin condems, predestination does not.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 10:01pm #77
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
fish wrote: Until you can

fish wrote:

Until you can answer my question as stated, how can you expect me to answer your question about choosing science over god?

I will not answer the qustion as stated because we both know where taht is going, no matter what I answer. I did specify no debating and we both know what this leads to. Come to me with a serious question that is not a cheap shot at my beliefs and then I'll answer your question.

Quote:

You are again mistaken.

Science makes no claims as to what happens after death, therefore it is impossible for anyone to have faith in science in regard to that question. I am not putting my faith in science any more than you are.

How am I mistaken. READ THE POST. READ IT AGAIN. READ IT CAREFULLY. You will notice some little sentence where I talk about what lense we both look though. NOW, will you please stop telling me how wrong I am when I am stating a belief and I CLEARY SAID NO DEBATING. If you do nto stop trying to argue with me here I will ignore your posts. Message me if you want to debate this stuff, this is not for debating. This is so you can understand a Christian veiw point better. You can not do that if you are busy telling me what is wrong with it.

Quote:

What makes you think that there aren't any unicorns?

I don't think that there are no unicorns. I don't know if there are or are not. Quite frankly I dont care.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 20, 2007 - 11:38pm #78
Dematrah
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-07-26
User is offlineOffline
With all due respect,

With all due respect, Crossover, there are quite a few of us who DO understand the christian viewpoint, and we understand it just fine.  There are those of us who used to BE christians.

Mutual Glomp (my art gallery, currently being updated) | DevArt | Dead Like Us | Nothing Special comic


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 12:10pm #79
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1) That passage doesn't

1) That passage doesn't guarantee anything. There are too many Christian belief systems that can lay claim to that for the exact reasons you do. It also doesn't answer the question - since God is the only one who knows for sure who will aceept and reject him, what makes you so sure that you are one of those he accepted?

2) I will get back to you on these passages - my computer access is limited today.

3) How can you say that? If God knows who will accept/reject him before they even exist (the cornerstone of predestination), that means that his foreknowledge (predestination) has already condemned these people to hell whether they accept him or not. Youleave open the possibility of a person accepting Jesus but he's still going to hell because he's on god's "going to hell" list and vice versa.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 1:52pm #80
latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, I didn't realize

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing. WEll, really I wasn't. i'm simply saying that based on religous beliefs ALL relgions date to the same time. Creation. I'm not saying that since Judaism or Christianity is old that they are right. I suggest you read everything before you tell me I'm wrong.

 

    Well you are making and arugment for your point of view, and i did read your post. Here is the mistake of your statement/arguement. NO they don't start from the time of creation, and no religion makes that statement at all. Judasim doesn't start until Moses, christianity technically doesn't start until jesus shows up, Buddhism doesn't start until guatama buddha shows up. According to Hindu tradition it doesn't start until some spiritual men (rishis) where shown the scarced scriptures called the four vedas, these men lived on the banks of the Indus and Ganges river, then there is the bloody filled islam (religion of peace i don't think so, and if some muslim can show me how so, i would be glad to listen) doesn't start until, well Mohammad really although mohammad claims moses was a muslim. 

    Plus i am still waiting for you to respond what you mean by technical miracle. I am not debating you either, i am correcting you misunderstandings. However even though there are questions for you, they will lead to debate.


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 1:55pm #81
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: shikko

Crossover wrote:

shikko wrote:

So people who act in accordance with those virtues or believe that those virtues should be the guiding rules of their life are true followers of Christ? What about people that act this way who have never heard of Christ, and therefore cannot possibly have accepted him as their saviour? In short, is it the acts that lead to salvation regardless of belief, or does belief in Christ lead to salvation, regardless of acts? Or do you need both, or something else?

those fruits are evidence of salvation. If you are saved then those fruits must be produced. You CAN NOT be saved by your works, no matter what...but if you are saved your works will reflect it.

As far as people who have never heard of Christ...they can fit all of the frutis except one. Faithfulness in this verse means faithfulness to god...which nonbelievers can not have.

Ah. So people who have accepted Christ as saviour but who act like scum will have the same problem as those who act like Christ but do not accept him as saviour. Is this right?

Okay, so if nonbelievers (for whatever reason they do not believe) can't be saved, do they go to hell when they die? If not, what happens to them? If so, what is this hell and what happens there?

Quote:

Quote:

As to your question; masters have obligations to their servants, and always have. Even in one of the most barbarous times in human history, vassals and peasants could expect their lord to protect them in times of danger. That means there are responsibilities that God has towards his followers, and given that the powers of the big-L Lord in this case (and the lord's requirements of his followers) are so much greater than the little-L lord in my example, the responsibilities should go way further than simple shelter in time of war. Is that not so?

It's Gods will. If it seems as if god have forsaken a follower at any time, He hasn't. See, you are right and you are wrong. More right than wrong though.

So everything that has happened and is happening and will happen is God's will? Is this correct?

Quote:

See, God doesn't have a responsability to us....we have a responsability to Him. BUT, he garauntees us that He will not forsake us and he will help us. As far as times that are troubling, god is putting us through those times to help us...the sun shines birghter after the storm has passed. he rewards those who are faithful through tough times.

Okay, so bad things happen because god is testing faith. Why is the only thing God cares about our faith in him? What does god get out of faith? Why does god want souls in heaven?

Also, I was reading back through this thread, and I noticed that a question got lost in the shuffle. The question was: Why are there conditions on who and how God will help?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 5:40pm #82
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Dematrah wrote: With all

Dematrah wrote:

With all due respect, Crossover, there are quite a few of us who DO understand the christian viewpoint, and we understand it just fine.  There are those of us who used to BE christians.

Ok. I know that. But I bet even they have questions. I mean as a Christian I have theological questions myself. No one that wants to know has no questions.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 5:56pm #83
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1) That

jcgadfly wrote:

1) That passage doesn't guarantee anything. There are too many Christian belief systems that can lay claim to that for the exact reasons you do. It also doesn't answer the question - since God is the only one who knows for sure who will aceept and reject him, what makes you so sure that you are one of those he accepted?

2) I will get back to you on these passages - my computer access is limited today.

3) How can you say that? If God knows who will accept/reject him before they even exist (the cornerstone of predestination), that means that his foreknowledge (predestination) has already condemned these people to hell whether they accept him or not. Youleave open the possibility of a person accepting Jesus but he's still going to hell because he's on god's "going to hell" list and vice versa.  

1) Well, rather than explain the passsage I will just tell you the second way I know. The Bible says that those who have faith in Christ are saved. You can not be saved without being predestined. I have faith.

2) Take your time...I understand limited computer access COMPLETELY. I cant tell you how many posts Ive had to end with "I'll finish this up later, I gotta get off"

 3) Well, a person can not accept Jesus an dstill go to hell, because if you accept Jesus an dhave faith you are saved. faith=saved=justified=predestined. God doesn't doom anyone to hell. He doesn't treat anyone unjustl. Rather, some recieve justice (punishment for their sins) and some recieve mercy. God doesn't treat everyone the same, and he never treats anyone unfairly. Even Christians must know that they do not want the justice of God. Alot of people opposed to the doctrine of election say "the God of Calvinism can not be just. And God must be just". Well, ythey don't want Gods justice.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 6:05pm #84
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: I'm

latincanuck wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing. WEll, really I wasn't. i'm simply saying that based on religous beliefs ALL relgions date to the same time. Creation. I'm not saying that since Judaism or Christianity is old that they are right. I suggest you read everything before you tell me I'm wrong.

 

    Well you are making and arugment for your point of view, and i did read your post. Here is the mistake of your statement/arguement. NO they don't start from the time of creation, and no religion makes that statement at all. Judasim doesn't start until Moses, christianity technically doesn't start until jesus shows up, Buddhism doesn't start until guatama buddha shows up. According to Hindu tradition it doesn't start until some spiritual men (rishis) where shown the scarced scriptures called the four vedas, these men lived on the banks of the Indus and Ganges river, then there is the bloody filled islam (religion of peace i don't think so, and if some muslim can show me how so, i would be glad to listen) doesn't start until, well Mohammad really although mohammad claims moses was a muslim. 

    Plus i am still waiting for you to respond what you mean by technical miracle. I am not debating you either, i am correcting you misunderstandings. However even though there are questions for you, they will lead to debate.

 

I answered your techinical miracles question didnt I? WEll if Ididn't here it is:

 

Raising people from the dead, healing (like you see Benny Hinn and he like do on tv...all fake), feeding 5,00 with a few loaves of bread and a few fish, speaking in toungues 9like from the charismatic movement of the 60's that is still big today)....stuff like that.

 

Now, keep in mind this is my personal belief. This is something that me and Christians that I know disagree on.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 6:27pm #85
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Ah. So

shikko wrote:

Ah. So people who have accepted Christ as saviour but who act like scum will have the same problem as those who act like Christ but do not accept him as saviour. Is this right?

Okay, so if nonbelievers (for whatever reason they do not believe) can't be saved, do they go to hell when they die? If not, what happens to them? If so, what is this hell and what happens there?

People who act like scum relaly didnt accept Christ to begin with. That is assuming they always act like scum. Christians do mess up alot and experience times where they act like scum.

If some one dies a non believer they do go to hell. Hell is a literal place. Basically hell is seperation from God. It is hot (lake of fire is the term used in the Bible) but the worst reason that it bad is because you are completely seperated from God. God is in hell, but you have no connection to God at all. That is what Christ felt on the cross also. God forsook Him. The hell is hot thing is right, but no physical pain can come close to seperation from God. In other words, if hell was a nice 75 degrees it would still be hell.

Quote:

So everything that has happened and is happening and will happen is God's will? Is this correct?

Yes. Now I will eliminate a future question that will probably arise by explaining the balance between mans feedom and God will.

Man has freedom. In Genesis God gave man the ability to eat from al trees, but He told us not to eat from one. We chose to eat from that one. The Biblical concept of freedom is different fro mthe concept of freedom as we see it. Basically man is free, but not sovereign. We are free, but that freedom can not overide the sovereignty of God.

Quote:

Okay, so bad things happen because god is testing faith. Why is the only thing God cares about our faith in him? What does god get out of faith? Why does god want souls in heaven?

Well, first not all bad times are really God testing faith. Some are god working out a plan through it. (ex. you are unmarried and a hurricane destroyed your bachelor pad...bad right? but when you went to live with your freind for a while until you got a place to stay you met a women who would become your wife, and you got a new, nice house wher you could start a family)

Secondly...you asked the toughest question known t mein the Christian faith. "why does God want to save people?" The answer is unknown to me. The best I can say is because of his mercy and his love he decided taht saving some peple was what He wanted. Thats not realy even a good answer, btu its the best I can come up with. I dont know of a man in the world who can tell youwhy God wants to save men. I has baffled theologians for centuries, and it will for centuries more.

Quote:
Also, I was reading back through this thread, and I noticed that a question got lost in the shuffle. The question was: Why are there conditions on who and how God will help?

THANK YOU. I hate that I missed this question. thanks for pointing it out to me. Why are there conditions on who God will save? The best I can do is quote scripture on this one.

Romans 9:14-22

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
   "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 7:05pm #86
Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: fish

Crossover wrote:

fish wrote:

Until you can answer my question as stated, how can you expect me to answer your question about choosing science over god?

I will not answer the qustion as stated because we both know where taht is going, no matter what I answer. I did specify no debating and we both know what this leads to. Come to me with a serious question that is not a cheap shot at my beliefs and then I'll answer your question.

You are wrong. I don't know where this is leads to. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. I would have liked to known your answer, but I have no way of forcing you to respond.

I have been trying to understand your viewpoint, and I am having great difficulty.

Crossover wrote:
How am I mistaken. READ THE POST. READ IT AGAIN. READ IT CAREFULLY. You will notice some little sentence where I talk about what lense we both look though. NOW, will you please stop telling me how wrong I am when I am stating a belief and I CLEARY SAID NO DEBATING. If you do nto stop trying to argue with me here I will ignore your posts. Message me if you want to debate this stuff, this is not for debating. This is so you can understand a Christian veiw point better. You can not do that if you are busy telling me what is wrong with it.

I never said anything was wrong with your viewpoint or your beliefs. I was explaining how your representation of science and "numbers," as well as my statements, are incorrect. In addition, I explained quite clearly how you were mistaken, but maybe you didn't read that part. I'm not trying to argue with you, but I can't really understand your explainations when your answers are analogies that don't actually relate to my statements.

As you stated, however, you don't have any answers that can hold up to any sort of scrutiny, so I guess I don't have any more questions. I will continue to read and try to understand your viewpoint somehow.


Posted on: September 21, 2007 - 11:22pm #87
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
fish wrote: You are wrong.

fish wrote:

You are wrong. I don't know where this is leads to. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. I would have liked to known your answer, but I have no way of forcing you to respond.

I have been trying to understand your viewpoint, and I am having great difficulty.

You're asking me a question that is loaded. In this question car= something real I can touch and unicorn= God...something you can not touch/see. If I answer car you say "its because you can touch it, and you know its real"...if I answer unicorn you say "it figures, because you don't know God exists just like you dont know if a unicorn exists".

Quote:

I never said anything was wrong with your viewpoint or your beliefs. I was explaining how your representation of science and "numbers," as well as my statements, are incorrect. In addition, I explained quite clearly how you were mistaken, but maybe you didn't read that part. I'm not trying to argue with you, but I can't really understand your explainations when your answers are analogies that don't actually relate to my statements.

You said that I was wrong because I was talking about life after death and science. I wasn't talking about science relating to lie after death. I have answered every question you have asked except one. My answers are not analogies taht dont relate to your statements. I have posted few analogies, and those I have posted have been written AFTER I answered your qustions. I answer it, and give an anolgy so you can understand it better. If the analogies confuse you tell me not to post them.

Quote:

As you stated, however, you don't have any answers that can hold up to any sort of scrutiny, so I guess I don't have any more questions. I will continue to read and try to understand your viewpoint somehow.

No question I ask you could hold up to any scrutiny if I had a preconcieved notion either. I asked you whether you put your faith in scince over god...and you answered taht since there is no God you did not. If I was asking you questions about why evolution doesn't stack up against the Bible, your answers wouldn't hold up to my scrutiny because I would only accept ansers taht agreed with the Bible. Science is more real to you, the Bible is more real to me. It's all about the lense you look through. Science answers more of your questions, the Bible answers mine. If we ask the same questions, but get different answers, then neither of our answers will stand up to the scrutiny of the other.

 

WE both ask "where did the world come from? My faith is in the bible, yours in science. You go to science for an answer, I go to the bible and God. We get different answers. Your answers do no stand up to the scrutiny of the bible, and my answers do not stand up to the scrutiny of science. So, do not discount my answers just because they do not stand up to science, because yor science does not stand up to my Bible. I know you didn't say you would discount my answers..Im jsut sayin don't.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 24, 2007 - 2:27pm #88
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: If some

Crossover wrote:

If some one dies a non believer they do go to hell. Hell is a literal place. Basically hell is seperation from God. It is hot (lake of fire is the term used in the Bible) but the worst reason that it bad is because you are completely seperated from God. God is in hell, but you have no connection to God at all. That is what Christ felt on the cross also. God forsook Him. The hell is hot thing is right, but no physical pain can come close to seperation from God. In other words, if hell was a nice 75 degrees it would still be hell.

Okay, so once someone is in hell, is there any way out?

As to separation from god being the worst part of hell: do non-believers (for whatever reason the don't believe) feel a closeness or connection to god, even though they don't believe? If so, what is this feeling of closeness or connection? If not, is hell then reduced to physical torture? Or am I missing an option?

Quote:

Quote:

So everything that has happened and is happening and will happen is God's will? Is this correct?

Yes. Now I will eliminate a future question that will probably arise by explaining the balance between mans feedom and God will.

Man has freedom. In Genesis God gave man the ability to eat from al trees, but He told us not to eat from one. We chose to eat from that one. The Biblical concept of freedom is different fro mthe concept of freedom as we see it. Basically man is free, but not sovereign. We are free, but that freedom can not overide the sovereignty of God.

Well, I'm a little confused now: if everything that happened/happens/will happen is God's will, doesn't that make god responsible for every atrocity in the history of man? I understand that human free will is usually at fault for human suffering, but if as you said, everything that happens is part of God's plan, how is suffering not directly attributable to God, either by direct action ("God's will" ) or direct allowance ("part of God's plan" )?

Quote:

Secondly...you asked the toughest question known t mein the Christian faith. "why does God want to save people?" The answer is unknown to me. The best I can say is because of his mercy and his love he decided taht saving some peple was what He wanted. Thats not realy even a good answer, btu its the best I can come up with. I dont know of a man in the world who can tell youwhy God wants to save men. I has baffled theologians for centuries, and it will for centuries more.

I want to say thank you very much for being so honest; I'm always glad when people say "yikes, I don't know" when they don't know, regardless of subject. Honest answers are how we arrive at good decisions.

If there isn't any direct scriptural answer to this question, do you think it's safe to say that any opinion is pure speculation on the part of theologians?

Quote:

Quote:
Also, I was reading back through this thread, and I noticed that a question got lost in the shuffle. The question was: Why are there conditions on who and how God will help?

THANK YOU. I hate that I missed this question. thanks for pointing it out to me. Why are there conditions on who God will save? The best I can do is quote scripture on this one.

Romans 9:14-22

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

I do not mean this in an argumentative way, but this passage isn't an answer. Romans 9:19 asks "why does god sometimes punish us?" Romans 9:20-21: "Because." I wouldn't take that answer from a teenager, so it seems like Romans should do better.

Is it impossible for us to know why god helps some and not others, or is it just not very clearly spelled out in scripture? If 20-21 above are an appeal to the sovreignity of god (meaning that God punishes some and not others because he is soverign and has no higher authority to whom he is responsible, so he can make decisions according to his will), then the answer seems to be "god does what he wants and it's not our place to question him" (taken practically literally from Rom 9:20). Is there a better interpretation of that passage that I'm not seeing?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 24, 2007 - 2:48pm #89
CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Main Entry: 1faith 1 a :

Main Entry: 1faith ">
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Which one of these faiths do you follow?


Posted on: September 24, 2007 - 7:15pm #90
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: Okay, so

shikko wrote:

Okay, so once someone is in hell, is there any way out?

As to separation from god being the worst part of hell: do non-believers (for whatever reason the don't believe) feel a closeness or connection to god, even though they don't believe? If so, what is this feeling of closeness or connection? If not, is hell then reduced to physical torture? Or am I missing an option?

No way out of hell. And yes, unbelievers do feel the seperation, because they meet God, and thus become believers...its just to late. I can't describe the feeling or degree because only one man has felt it (and didn't go to hell), and that is Christ on the cross.

Quote:

Well, I'm a little confused now: if everything that happened/happens/will happen is God's will, doesn't that make god responsible for every atrocity in the history of man? I understand that human free will is usually at fault for human suffering, but if as you said, everything that happens is part of God's plan, how is suffering not directly attributable to God, either by direct action ("God's will" ) or direct allowance ("part of God's plan" )?

Well, suffering is related to the falleness of this world (ie. sin). I personally believe that suffering is a part of God's judgment of this world. So in light of that, the question might be rephrased "how can a just God allow a criminal to suffer?" When it could just as easily be asked "how can a just God NOT allow a crminal to suffer?" The fact is that if there were no sin, tehre would be no suffering. BUT God also uses suffering for our redemption, to build our character and our faith.

Quote:

If there isn't any direct scriptural answer to this question, do you think it's safe to say that any opinion is pure speculation on the part of theologians?

Any answer outside of "because God wanted to" is pure speculation. All we know is taht god saved us because HE wanted to. So yes, any answer that elaborates on that any further IS pure speculation. Though I do not know a good theologian that speculates on that.

Quote:

Is it impossible for us to know why god helps some and not others, or is it just not very clearly spelled out in scripture? If 20-21 above are an appeal to the sovreignity of god (meaning that God punishes some and not others because he is soverign and has no higher authority to whom he is responsible, so he can make decisions according to his will), then the answer seems to be "god does what he wants and it's not our place to question him" (taken practically literally from Rom 9:20). Is there a better interpretation of that passage that I'm not seeing?

Nope. You pretty much got that right. In Ephesians 1 it Paul says there are conditions as to who He will save basically because he wants them. In Romans he says we aren't in any position to questio God.

 

Keep in mind, predestination is NOT a core belief of the Christian faith, and it is hotly disputed. I am one who believes in it, but alot of Christians do not. Since scripture supports predestination, and goes agaisnt free will, then I support it. But some disagree.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 24, 2007 - 8:26pm #91
Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Well,

Crossover wrote:

Well, suffering is related to the falleness of this world (ie. sin). I personally believe that suffering is a part of God's judgment of this world. So in light of that, the question might be rephrased "how can a just God allow a criminal to suffer?" When it could just as easily be asked "how can a just God NOT allow a crminal to suffer?" The fact is that if there were no sin, tehre would be no suffering. BUT God also uses suffering for our redemption, to build our character and our faith.


Please explain that to the infant or toddler born with a terrible affliction or disease.

Sorry, the original sin explaination doesn't suffice here.  Causing suffering to an innocent is the same as putting me in jail because the guy down the street robbed a gas station.  I didn't do it.  I couldn't stop it.  Heck, I don't even know the guy!

That's not a very nice god to cause pain and suffering to a tiny baby because somebody else did something wrong.  That child is neither a criminal nor a sinner.  

 

Please explain that to the victims of Hurricane Katrina who lost everything including loved ones.  No doubt there were plenty of good, god-fearing xians who suffered terribly and deserved NONE of it. 

 

Take it one step further.  Please explain it to all the animals that suffer cruelty, affliction and disease.  They cannot comprehend any of it.  They only know that they suffer. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Posted on: September 25, 2007 - 2:15pm #92
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote:Please

Susan wrote:

Please explain that to the infant or toddler born with a terrible affliction or disease.

Sorry, the original sin explaination doesn't suffice here.  Causing suffering to an innocent is the same as putting me in jail because the guy down the street robbed a gas station.  I didn't do it.  I couldn't stop it.  Heck, I don't even know the guy!

That's not a very nice god to cause pain and suffering to a tiny baby because somebody else did something wrong.  That child is neither a criminal nor a sinner.  

Please explain that to the victims of Hurricane Katrina who lost everything including loved ones.  No doubt there were plenty of good, god-fearing xians who suffered terribly and deserved NONE of it. 

Take it one step further.  Please explain it to all the animals that suffer cruelty, affliction and disease.  They cannot comprehend any of it.  They only know that they suffer. 

Everyone is born in sin. We have a sin nature. You ARE the criminal. You have sinned. Do not deny that, because that in and of itself would be a sin...a lie. The child is a sinner. The term "original sin" comes in...also "total depravity". Looke those up.

As far a Christians and huricane Katrina. I think that Christian suffering has been touched on earlier in the discussion. I think it was me talkin to Fish. But, also, look at my last post. God uses suffering to build our character, to build our faith, to test our faith, and to help us. I used a huricane analogy in another post, with Katrina in mind specifically.

Animal sufering. Well, they have no "soul"...and they have not sinned. Most animal suffering is really caused by humans. If this answer isn't thorough enough then please provid an example. I'm having a hard time thinking of any animal suffering not caused by humans.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 25, 2007 - 2:17pm #93
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: Main

CrimsonEdge wrote:

Main Entry: 1faith ">
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Which one of these faiths do you follow?

All. I have allegiance to some people. I have a trust and a loyalty to God. I believe some things with strong conviction.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 25, 2007 - 3:29pm #94
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: No way

Crossover wrote:

No way out of hell. And yes, unbelievers do feel the seperation, because they meet God, and thus become believers...its just to late. I can't describe the feeling or degree because only one man has felt it (and didn't go to hell), and that is Christ on the cross.

So hell is the punishment for any and all sins, and that punishment lasts forever. Is the lesson being taught to the person in hell, or to those not yet dead?

Quote:

Quote:

Well, I'm a little confused now: if everything that happened/happens/will happen is God's will, doesn't that make god responsible for every atrocity in the history of man? I understand that human free will is usually at fault for human suffering, but if as you said, everything that happens is part of God's plan, how is suffering not directly attributable to God, either by direct action ("God's will" ) or direct allowance ("part of God's plan" )?

Well, suffering is related to the falleness of this world (ie. sin). I personally believe that suffering is a part of God's judgment of this world. So in light of that, the question might be rephrased "how can a just God allow a criminal to suffer?" When it could just as easily be asked "how can a just God NOT allow a crminal to suffer?" The fact is that if there were no sin, tehre would be no suffering. BUT God also uses suffering for our redemption, to build our character and our faith.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question I asked, but let's go with yours for a second. I have no problem with the concept of God punishing those who have done something wrong; justice is a punishment proportional to the misdeed. I'm a big believer in justice. Your question doesn't seem to pose any difficulties to me. However, what if we rephrase your question to "how could a merciful God allow the innocent to suffer?" Personally, I have no answer to that one.

Back to my original question: if all that happens is according to God's plan or due to God's will, doesn't that make him the ultimate architect of every horror one human has ever visited upon another? It seems like either he wanted those things to happen to the victims (God's will), or ALLOWED those evil things to happen to the victims (God's plan). Is my understanding not accurate? Am I missing something?

Quote:

Quote:

If there isn't any direct scriptural answer to this question, do you think it's safe to say that any opinion is pure speculation on the part of theologians?

Any answer outside of "because God wanted to" is pure speculation. All we know is taht god saved us because HE wanted to. So yes, any answer that elaborates on that any further IS pure speculation. Though I do not know a good theologian that speculates on that.

Okay, great. Thank you for that.

Quote:

Nope. You pretty much got that right. In Ephesians 1 it Paul says there are conditions as to who He will save basically because he wants them. In Romans he says we aren't in any position to questio God.

Keep in mind, predestination is NOT a core belief of the Christian faith, and it is hotly disputed. I am one who believes in it, but alot of Christians do not. Since scripture supports predestination, and goes agaisnt free will, then I support it. But some disagree.

Can you explain your beliefs about the mechanism of predestination? Are people literally preordained to heaven or hell, regardless of the content of their life?

 

P.S. Thank you for taking so much time with this. I know these questions aren't exactly light, so I appreciate you taking the time to share your point of view.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 25, 2007 - 3:40pm #95
CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: All. I

Crossover wrote:
All. I have allegiance to some people. I have a trust and a loyalty to God. I believe some things with strong conviction.

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Good to know.


Posted on: September 25, 2007 - 7:17pm #96
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: So hell is

shikko wrote:

So hell is the punishment for any and all sins, and that punishment lasts forever. Is the lesson being taught to the person in hell, or to those not yet dead?

Hell is the punishment for all sins that are unforgiven. If you are saved, then although you have sinned they will not be punished. And as for the question...I don't know. It's fair to assume there is not lesson being taught to the person in hell, because it's too late then. I'm not sure that there is anyone learning a lesson really. I mean, we can learn a lesson, but I don't think thats God's intent. But, scripture isn't totaly clear on that.

Quote:

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question I asked, 

 

Oops, sorry. I'll try better (see later in the post).

Quote:

However, what if we rephrase your question to "how could a merciful God allow the innocent to suffer?" Personally, I have no answer to that one.

There is no one innocent.

Quote:

if all that happens is according to God's plan or due to God's will, doesn't that make him the ultimate architect of every horror one human has ever visited upon another? It seems like either he wanted those things to happen to the victims (God's will), or ALLOWED those evil things to happen to the victims (God's plan). Is my understanding not accurate? Am I missing something?

It's a mixture of both. God has passed His judgment on people (and entire nations, like Israel) through direct punishment (ie. catastrophic events). Other time He has allowed things to happen. Why? Because He gave man a free will. I'm walking a thin line here. There is a thin line between predestination and free will, if you tilt to much one way you fall off. So in what I'm about to say I'm walking that thin line.

Knowing what I said about God's predestining people for salvation, and predestining the conditions of that salvation, it must also be understood that god gives men a free will to do things, like sin. He allowed Hitler to sin. He he MAKE Hitler sin? No. Did He allow it as part of His plan? Yes. That ALLOWING Hitler to sin caused the death of millions of people. I WISH I had a good analogy here but I don't, so I'll use a bad one.

 Picture yourself as God. You've decided who will go to heaven and what will happen in there lives that will lead them to you. Now it's all on how those events will happen. You give man the ability to make choices, but all of those choices must go along with your will.

The one thing I have noticed about God is that His plan is so complex, if He allowed on ething to go against His will, everything would. Nothing, no event, no action, nothing has only one reaction. It's like if you're in a crowded room and you slap somebody in the head. Everyone laughs, he gets mad, you get scared of the mad dude, he hits you, you get to fighting, the crowd breaks it up.....see how that one action affected the actions of every person in the room for an infinite time span. With every choice you make you'll neever know how much that affected your life. The smallest action affects you forever.

But I'm off on a tangent now.

Quote:

Can you explain your beliefs about the mechanism of predestination? Are people literally preordained to heaven or hell, regardless of the content of their life?

Well, it's not really all about heaven. Yes He predestins who will go to ehaven, but along with that he gives those people a desire to follow him, which changes teh content of their life. So realy, no, a person can't go to heaven regardless of the content of their life because the content of your life is changed based on the predestination. And while he does predestin who will go to heaven, that is an indirect thing. Heaven isn't the reason we are saved. It's a desire for God. Like Sai Linne said "I don't want to go to heaven if God is not there." God chose who will have a desire for Him...that does mean that if you have a desire for Him you will go to heaven, but its the desire for Him that is the biggest thing.

 

Quote:

P.S. Thank you for taking so much time with this. I know these questions aren't exactly light, so I appreciate you taking the time to share your point of view.

No, thank you. I appreciate your curiosity. I know my posts aren't short (like this one) and I appreciate you going through them. To me, this is all fun stuff.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 26, 2007 - 4:44pm #97
shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Hell is

Crossover wrote:

Hell is the punishment for all sins that are unforgiven. If you are saved, then although you have sinned they will not be punished. And as for the question...I don't know. It's fair to assume there is not lesson being taught to the person in hell, because it's too late then. I'm not sure that there is anyone learning a lesson really. I mean, we can learn a lesson, but I don't think thats God's intent. But, scripture isn't totaly clear on that.

(snip)

There is no one innocent.

So everyone is born guilty, and anyone unsaved will go to hell for eternity. I think I've got that straight now.

Quote:

Quote:

if all that happens is according to God's plan or due to God's will, doesn't that make him the ultimate architect of every horror one human has ever visited upon another? It seems like either he wanted those things to happen to the victims (God's will), or ALLOWED those evil things to happen to the victims (God's plan). Is my understanding not accurate? Am I missing something?

It's a mixture of both. God has passed His judgment on people (and entire nations, like Israel) through direct punishment (ie. catastrophic events). Other time He has allowed things to happen. Why? Because He gave man a free will. I'm walking a thin line here. There is a thin line between predestination and free will, if you tilt to much one way you fall off. So in what I'm about to say I'm walking that thin line.

Knowing what I said about God's predestining people for salvation, and predestining the conditions of that salvation, it must also be understood that god gives men a free will to do things, like sin. He allowed Hitler to sin. He he MAKE Hitler sin? No. Did He allow it as part of His plan? Yes. That ALLOWING Hitler to sin caused the death of millions of people. I WISH I had a good analogy here but I don't, so I'll use a bad one.

Picture yourself as God. You've decided who will go to heaven and what will happen in there lives that will lead them to you. Now it's all on how those events will happen. You give man the ability to make choices, but all of those choices must go along with your will.

So are you telling me that you agree with the idea of God being ultimately responsible for the bad things humans to do each other? Also, this sounds like predestination allows for someone to live a pious, faithful, model Christian life and going to hell anyway because that's what God preordained. Can this happen?

Quote:

The one thing I have noticed about God is that His plan is so complex, if He allowed on ething to go against His will, everything would. Nothing, no event, no action, nothing has only one reaction...

(snip)

But I'm off on a tangent now.

I'm not sure how to fit this idea in with the commonly accepted view of God as an omnimax being. I know that people often say that just because god is omnipotent doesn't imply that he WILL do anything, just that he CAN. If he is, how can God not find a way to accomplish his will without increasing human suffering? Wouldn't that be the merciful thing to do?

Quote:

Well, it's not really all about heaven. Yes He predestins who will go to ehaven, but along with that he gives those people a desire to follow him, which changes teh content of their life. So realy, no, a person can't go to heaven regardless of the content of their life because the content of your life is changed based on the predestination. And while he does predestin who will go to heaven, that is an indirect thing. Heaven isn't the reason we are saved. It's a desire for God. Like Sai Linne said "I don't want to go to heaven if God is not there." God chose who will have a desire for Him...that does mean that if you have a desire for Him you will go to heaven, but its the desire for Him that is the biggest thing.

Predestination causes me some intellectual problems. I can't understand how God can be considered just while at the same time casting people into hell for eternity if that's what he chooses to have happen. So does predestination dictate that some people will go to hell because that is God's will, or just that there are people guaranteed to go to heaven, because that is God's will?

 

P.S. Do you identify yourself as belonging to a particular denomination? If so, do you feel your beliefs are fairly representative of the core teaching of your denomination?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Posted on: September 26, 2007 - 7:02pm #98
zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
What is the significance of

What is the significance of the historical period during which  jesus supposedly lived and died?  Could jesus have ministered at an earlier or later date without any change in effect?

 

Why is it necessary for jesus to return?  Why couldn't jesus have shown up just once at the end of time and paid for everyone's sins then? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Posted on: September 26, 2007 - 7:22pm #99
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: So everyone

shikko wrote:

So everyone is born guilty, and anyone unsaved will go to hell for eternity. I think I've got that straight now

Yes. Now that you understand it I'll add in a few exeptions. I believe in something called teh age of understanding. Which means, if a baby is born and dies a a few weeks later, or if a mentaly retarded person lives to be 100...they can still go to heaven. Only those who have the intellectual capacity to understand the idea of God can be held accountable. There is no particular age, rather a particular level of understanding.

CAtholics believe infant baptism is the only way to save babies, but I do not.

Quote:

So are you telling me that you agree with the idea of God being ultimately responsible for the bad things humans to do each other?

I'm saying that God allowed men to have the will to make the choices that became bad things. God gave Hitler a choice to be a mass murdered or a doctor...Hitler chose murdered. God gives choise, people make choice.

Quote:

Also, this sounds like predestination allows for someone to live a pious, faithful, model Christian life and going to hell anyway because that's what God preordained. Can this happen?

No, because if you live a truely faithful life then you basically were predestined. Faith in God is a gift from God, which means if you have faith in God then you were given it because God predestined you.

Quote:

I'm not sure how to fit this idea in with the commonly accepted view of God as an omnimax being. I know that people often say that just because god is omnipotent doesn't imply that he WILL do anything, just that he CAN. If he is, how can God not find a way to accomplish his will without increasing human suffering? Wouldn't that be the merciful thing to do?

Let's go back to the story of Adam and Eve. This world was perfect. Adam (and Eve) sinned. That made this world fallen. God told Adam not to eat from one tree, and Adam chose to eat from that one tree. It was the choice of man that caused the fall of man. Could God have created Adam and not given Him the choice of eating from taht tree? Yes...and that would have saved humanity. But God gave us a choice to show us that we are below Him.

With that and the fact that God is omnipotent in mind let's adress the question at hand. "how can God not find a way to accomplish his will without increasing human suffering?" Suffering is not His will. It is our will. There is a difference between God's wants, and God's will. He wants us to be perfect beings...His will is not that we sin, but gave us the choise to sin, which we took. Basically, what I'm saying is that it is us taht causes the suffering because He gave us a choice and we took that human suffering chocie. Could He have made us so we have no choice and we do not sin...yes. Would that prevent suffering? Yes. Why didn't He? Because He made us to glorify Him, and if He would have made us perfect and given us no choice but to be perfect then we would have been equals with Him.

 

"Wouldn't tha be the merciful thing to do?"  The merciful thing to do would be to create us without a choice ot sin. But that would go against Him and His will. So He did something even more merciful. he allowed us to choose Him, and He sent His son to die for us. (In that sentence He means the Father, His means the Father, and son means the son.....both of whom are God). The most merciful thing He could have done would be to die for us.

Quote:

Predestination causes me some intellectual problems. I can't understand how God can be considered just while at the same time casting people into hell for eternity if that's what he chooses to have happen. So does predestination dictate that some people will go to hell because that is God's will, or just that there are people guaranteed to go to heaven, because that is God's will?

That is the biggest objection to predestination there is, even amongst Christans. "a God who predestins can't be just". Well, I'll explain it like this.

-We have all sinned

-Because of our love for si we have no desire for God.

-God HAD to give us that desire.

-Since we have all sinned He paid the price for that sin

-Since we have all sinned, and we have no desire for Him he gives justice to a few.

Picture a court, where there are 3 defendants and God is the judge. God says to one, "I will have mercy on you. You deserve justice, but my son paid the price for you". He says to the others"you have committed a crime...you deserve justice and justice is what you will have."

So God isn't not just for choosing to save some. It's just that He chose to save some, and chose to exercise justice on others.

 

Quote:

P.S. Do you identify yourself as belonging to a particular denomination? If so, do you feel your beliefs are fairly representative of the core teaching of your denomination?

Nope, no denomination. I guess the closest in theology I come to a denomination is Baptist. I do represent the core theologic teachings of the Baptist denomination, but I do not represent the core ideals outside of scripture as teh Baptists. I am conservatice in theology (like Baptists) but liberal in acts. Most Baptists churches have good theology but do nothing with it outside the church. There are a few exeptions to that though.

 

Anyway, no I do not belong to a denomination. I attend a nondenominational church!

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Posted on: September 26, 2007 - 7:28pm #100
Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: What is

zarathustra wrote:

What is the significance of the historical period during which  jesus supposedly lived and died?  Could jesus have ministered at an earlier or later date without any change in effect?

 

Why is it necessary for jesus to return?  Why couldn't jesus have shown up just once at the end of time and paid for everyone's sins then? 

I think I missed this question in the shuffle. I'm sorry.

Jesus could have lived during a different time, but it would have had to line up with the prophecies. See in the Old Testament there are prophecies by Jews talking about the coming of the messiah (which most modern Jews are still waiting on those prophecies to be filled by a man today!). Jesus fit every criteria listed by the prophets. I think it's something like 300 prophecies were filled in JEsus...including mand who would pave the way for the messiah (John the Baptist).

 

And the reasons Jesus had to return are 1) to fill the prophecies and 2) to show power over death. As I heard an athiest once say on the history channel "if the story didn't have Jesus rising from the dead within a few days, Christianity would not exist and the story of Jesus would have died along with the other guys who claimed to be the messiah." He had to defeat death(seeing as He is God).

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


« first‹ previous12345next ›last »