agnostic vs. atheist

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I had a girlfriend once who was decidedly atheist (due to her mother dying at a young age). The very idea of God was so absurd to her, there was no question you were "losing it" if you even considered the possibility that a God (in any form) might exist. It's difficult to explain. A godless universe was such a perfectly accepted fact in her household, at God might exist; they would disengage from you long before you managed to get that far.

I know people like that as well. It seems that (pain + all loving and all powerful God) is an unsolvable equation for many. In fact, these are the objections we hear continuoulsy on these boards. Questions like, why does God allow innocent children to suffer and why does God allow people to go to hell, and why does God judge sin in the Bible so severly at times etc, etc. I view this as one of the major stumblingblocks towards having faith.

However, for me the unsolvable equation is (no free will = love). How can this be? All loving relationships require the ability to embrace/reject anothers love towards them. Otherwise, without free will you are merely the extension of the controlling party. In effect, the controlling party would either be hating/loving themselves back.

The reverse can be said about elderly people on their death-beds converting or at least seeming much more interested in religion.
Clutching at straws would be one way of looking at it.

Churches are full to the brim with coffin dodgers!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I had a girlfriend once who was decidedly atheist (due to her mother dying at a young age). The very idea of God was so absurd to her, there was no question you were "losing it" if you even considered the possibility that a God (in any form) might exist. It's difficult to explain. A godless universe was such a perfectly accepted fact in her household, ...[text shortened]... at God might exist; they would disengage from you long before you managed to get that far.

Do you still have her number? I think I'm in love.

Originally posted by whodey
I know people like that as well. It seems that (pain + all loving and all powerful God) is an unsolvable equation for many. In fact, these are the objections we hear continuoulsy on these boards. Questions like, why does God allow innocent children to suffer and why does God allow people to go to hell, and why does God judge sin in the Bible so severly at ...[text shortened]... trolling party. In effect, the controlling party would either be hating/loving themselves back.

And, as you know, Whodey, those two equations come together with the expressed threat of eternal punishment/torment “if you choose not to love me.” Now, free will or no, would you consider that a loving stance for me to take vis-à-vis my wife? “You have free will, dear, but if you don’t love me I’ll punish you dreadfully”? As I asked knightmeister, is God’s love for us less than my love for my wife? [He answered properly, in my view, by the way.]

To be fair, however, Epi (as he is becoming affectionately known here) is not into eternal punishment/torment, but simple destruction—a final end, if you will...

Originally posted by vistesd
And, as you know, Whodey, those two equations come together with the expressed threat of eternal punishment/torment “if you choose not to love me.” Now, free will or no, would you consider that a loving stance for me to take vis-à-vis my wife? “You have free will, dear, but if you don’t love me I’ll punish you dreadfully”? As I asked knightmeister, is G ...[text shortened]... here) is not into eternal punishment/torment, but simple destruction—a final end, if you will...

I suppose it is all depends upon your perspective. On another thread someone stated that true love is without coersion and/or control. I then asked the question if love is without coersion or control and if God is a God of such love, how then does God go about being a God of such love? I think choosing to surrender part of his control over us via free will is the answer.

Having said that, if one has no ability of rejecting God who is love then there is no love. However, if one is capable of rejecting God who is the source of love then there truly is free will.

However, God is not only the source of love, he is the source of life. Therefore, if one rejects the source of love and the source of life then what is one embracing? Would we not then be embracing death and a loveless existence? How could this be anything short of torment/punishment? How could God reverse it if he has given us the choice to embrace or reject him? We then come full circle once again. Where is free will if we reject God? In order to have life/love once again, we must embrace him because he is the source.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose it is all depends upon your perspective. On another thread someone stated that true love is without coersion and/or control. I then asked the question if love is without coersion or control and if God is a God of such love, how then does God go about being a God of such love? I think choosing to surrender part of his control over us via free will ...[text shortened]... eject God? In order to have life/love once again, we must embrace him because he is the source.

I think choosing to surrender part of his control over us via free will is the answer.

Of itself, that is a view of some theological standing, historically...

However, God is not only the source of love, he is the source of life. Therefore, if one rejects the source of love and the source of life then what is one embracing? Would we not then be embracing death and a loveless existence? How could this be anything short of torment/punishment?

This too, but it is not unarguable...

How could God reverse it if he has given us the choice to embrace or reject him?

...and this is where I make my argument.

(1) Your position may hold under a strictly juridical concept of salvation—but the root meaning of the Greek soterias is healing, making-well or making-whole. If God cannot heal without our consent, then how did the Samaritan (God) dare to care for the unconscious man in the ditch without his consent? And how are we to act likewise?

If my wife has rejected my love, and I find her injured and unconscious in a ditch, am I excused from aiding her? Would my refusal be in any way a loving act?

(2) You are presuming that the choice we make is (a) eternal, and (b) made without any mistake of fact. You are presuming that God cannot act after our physical death. Physical death is a bar, not only to our ability to choose (in the light of eternity, and no longer through a glass darkly), but to God’s ability/willingness to act.

Which is it: ability or willingness?

Is God love (agape), as the letter of John states—or did John really mean to say that God is merely loving, or some such? If God is love, and God is God—what are the necessary limits of God’s love? If God’s very essence is love, can any of God’s attributes conflict with that?

Suppose that God decides to ultimately save (heal) everyone—despite your understanding of the Biblical message (which I also think is arguable, but even if it isn’t)—do you have any objection? Are you as willing to insist to God that he meet certain conditions as you may be in debate on here? Are you willing to insist to God that he not “reverse it”? I would suggest that it’s far more loving to pray that he does—without conditions... (And, knowing you, you may well do that.)

Try thinking for a bit of soterias as God’s healing activity, as they tend to in the Eastern Orthodox churches—rather than in juridical terms of sentencing or pardon (as is more common in the Protestant West).

Originally posted by vistesd


(1) Your position may hold under a strictly juridical concept of salvation—but the root meaning of the Greek soterias is healing, making-well or making-whole. If God cannot heal without our consent, then how did the Samaritan (God) dare to care for the unconscious man in the ditch without his consent? And how are we to act likewise?

If m ...[text shortened]... ther than in juridical terms of sentencing or pardon (as is more common in the Protestant West).[/b]

For me salvation = Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Everything else is temperal and window dressing. You might argue that God interceeded devoid of our approval/free will for such a plan but I would argue otherwise. I have made my views known in the past about such examples as Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son. What if he is not willing to do it? Was this willingness to do so needed for God to work through Abrahams future generations to produce the Messiah who would later be the sacrificial Son of God? What about the other men and women in the Bible? Was there faith needed to lay building blocks for the introduction of the Messiah who would become the salvation for all mankind? Perhaps it was all needed.

As for your analogy about the Good Samaritan, I would say that there is a difference for those who can give consent and those who cannot. For example, those that do not have the mental capacity to accept/reject Christ I do not think are held accountable. Perhaps they are given a chance to choose later down the road after this life, I don't know. Such examples include the mentally retarded or young children. Christ said that those that reject him do so because they hated the light and loved the darkness because their deeds were evil. In effect, they loved the sin more than the light that reveals such sin for what it is. Perhaps we can leave it at that and let God take it from there and be the judge of us all. After all, I think he would do a better job than I. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
For me salvation = Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Everything else is temperal and window dressing. You might argue that God interceeded devoid of our approval/free will for such a plan but I would argue otherwise. I have made my views known in the past about such examples as Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son. What if he is not willing to do i ...[text shortened]... rom there and be the judge of us all. After all, I think he would do a better job than I. 😀

You might argue that God interceded devoid of our approval/free will for such a plan but I would argue otherwise.

I would argue just that.

You are still stuck in a juridical “theology of the cross.” The early church (while not dismissing the cross) focused more on a “theology of incarnation”: God assumed human nature (all of it) for the purpose of soterias-healing.

As for your analogy about the Good Samaritan, I would say that there is a difference for those who can give consent and those who cannot.

(1) I would not restrict that to the mentally ill, etc. In a disease model of sin (and in both Hebrew and Greek, as well as the original usage of the English word, that encompasses all human error and failure—not just deliberate acts), human consciousness generally may be affected. You seem to assume that having free will means to be disease-free, and able to make a fully-informed choice in the matter.

(2) I don’t know if Jesus was speaking universally there or not. In the Gospel of John, it says that the darkness could not comprehend the light. By interpreting it the way you seem to be, you are assuming that everyone in the world who is not a Christian is morally—perverse. That’s pretty harsh.

In any event, I repeat my question: Is God unable or unwilling?

Originally posted by whodey
As for your analogy about the Good Samaritan, I would say that there is a difference for those who can give consent and those who cannot. For example, those that do not have the mental capacity to accept/reject Christ I do not think are held accountable. Perhaps they are given a chance to choose later down the road after this life, I don't know. Such exam ...[text shortened]... from there and be the judge of us all. After all, I think he would do a better job than I. 😀

I think I must be in the category of those who "do not have the mental capacity to accept/reject Christ". You see I cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter while remaining an atheist. How can I choose to accept/reject what I do not believe?
So the category of people who "hated the light and loved the darkness because their deeds were evil" must be people who believe in God but still reject him - that seems rather stupid to me and even more mentally retarded but I guess some people are like that.
The other interesting thing about it is that the rejection seems to come after they have already committed evil deeds and as a direct result of those evil deeds. It makes you wonder why God didn't make the offer a bit sooner....

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I must be in the category of those who "do not have the mental capacity to accept/reject Christ". You see I cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter while remaining an atheist. How can I choose to accept/reject what I do not believe?
So the category of people who "hated the light and loved the darkness because their deeds were evil ...[text shortened]... ult of those evil deeds. It makes you wonder why God didn't make the offer a bit sooner....

You see I cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter while remaining an atheist. How can I choose to accept/reject what I do not believe? WHITEY

To a certain extent belief is a choice. Belief in Biblical terms can be equated with trust . I think trust in relation to God is an interesting idea because as Christians we are also sometimes atheists in that we don't trust God at certain times. So trust is a big issue. You do not trust that if you were to explore the christian faith or ask jesus to make himself real to you that anything would happen. You choose not to trust that you might find out something that you didn't realise. You do not know that something might happen.

however , I do sympathise with your position because in reality you are unable to choose on your own strength. Nobody can actually come to faith without God leading them there. It's the activity of the spirit that brings someone to christ . My belief is that there is a plan and an appointed time for everyone's life when he will show himself and you will have that choice. Having said this that time might be tomorrow if you really want it to be. You cannot choose right now to accept or reject but you can choose to not find out or find out.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You see I cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter while remaining an atheist. How can I choose to accept/reject what I do not believe? WHITEY

To a certain extent belief is a choice. Belief in Biblical terms can be equated with trust . I think trust in relation to God is an interesting idea because as Christians we are also sometimes ...[text shortened]... cannot choose right now to accept or reject but you can choose to not find out or find out.

One series of bogus arguments after another.
And ones which could as easily be used by atheists ... ergo, you do not trust that if you were to explore atheist faith, that the non-existence of god and the lack of divinity of jesus would be made clear to you ... and so on. Of course, this is ridiculous, but so, might I suggest, is your perspective.

I reject the notion of a god.
You would claim I haven't kept my mind open to the fact of god's existence; that jesus will make himself real to me.

You need to recognise that such a claim is meaningless to an atheist.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]You might argue that God interceded devoid of our approval/free will for such a plan but I would argue otherwise.

I would argue just that.

You are still stuck in a juridical “theology of the cross.” The early church (while not dismissing the cross) focused more on a “theology of incarnation”: God assumed human nature (all of it) for the purpose of soterias-healing.

I do not take issue with the notion that the cross is seen as a source of "healing". In fact, it says in Isaiah that by his stripes we are healed etc. If one were to say that Christs only purpose was to die on the cross one would ignore a ministry that spanned years of healing people in a variety of ways. However, the cross was the main purpose for him coming because it was the ultimate healing because this healing had eternal implications compared to simple temperal ones. It reminds me of the story of the miracle of taking a few fish and loaves of bread and feeding the multitude of people. Why did he do it? Was it simply to do a good deed? I say it was not only an act of kindness but it was done to gain their attention. Otherwise why did he not simply dedicate his entire life to feeding those who were hungry and haeling those who were sick? In short, why did he choose the cross if his main purpose was to do good deeds of healing such as these? It seems to me that if the cross was not the main focus of his life that the cross would then be seen as a failure of sorts because it cut short years of a potential "healing" ministry. In fact, I think his public ministry spanned only a few years altogether.

Also, what of the statement by Christ that the greatest love is seen by those who lay down their life for their friends? How was he laying down his life for his friends via the cross, or do you think he was referring knowing that this would be his ultimate fate?

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) I would not restrict that to the mentally ill, etc. In a disease model of sin (and in both Hebrew and Greek, as well as the original usage of the English word, that encompasses all human error and failure—not just deliberate acts), human consciousness generally may be affected. You seem to assume that having free will means to be disease-free, and able to make a fully-informed choice in the matter.

For me, the disease model of sin is simply loosing faith in God's perfect will. Coupled with this perfect will is the realization that God is a God of love, thus his perfect will is assumed to be what is "best" for us. Anything less than what is best for us would be falling short of God's loving perfect will for us. In effect, if God is holy and perfect one would either choose to side with his perfect will or fall short thus sin is introduced. The Bible makes it clear that in order not to "fall short" one simply needs to choose to side with him concerning his perfect will that he has made known to us. In fact, faith is equated with righteousness and at any time we are more than welcomed to become righeous once we decide to jump on the band wagon, so to speak. Saying that faith equals righteousness is a powerful statement and it is also backed by the teachings of Christ. For example, on more than one occasion Christ tells people who reach out to him in faith that they are then healed, or forgiven etc. for their faith in him. In fact, scripture indicates that in certain areas Christ was unable to do any miracles/good works because of the unbelief of the people. Why is this unless free will is a limiting agent for God being able to move in our lives as I have stated?

Originally posted by vistesd


(2) I don’t know if Jesus was speaking universally there or not. In the Gospel of John, it says that the darkness could not comprehend the light. By interpreting it the way you seem to be, you are assuming that everyone in the world who is not a Christian is morally—perverse. That’s pretty harsh.

If the story of Adam and Eve is "correct" do you find the judgements handed down to them for their lack of faith in God seen in their disobedience as harsh? They simply chose to go against what God had told them not to do. What is so wrong with that? In fact, who were they hurting? Did they become morally perverse? In the eyes of God they seemed to be. Why else would he kick them out of paradise and allow them to die for their sin? If God is truly a holy God that cannot stand the sight of sin, sin is the obstacle that seperates us from him. Thus anything that seperates us from his love for us is deemed perverse. Anything that causes us to die and be seperated from him forever would also be considered perverse. In short, anything that falls short of his perfect will would be considered perverse.

Originally posted by vistesd
How could God reverse it if he has given us the choice to embrace or reject him?

...and this is where I make my argument.

(1) Your position may hold under a strictly juridical concept of salvation—but the root meaning of the Greek soterias is healing, making-well or making-whole. If God cannot heal without our consent, then how did ...[text shortened]... ther than in juridical terms of sentencing or pardon (as is more common in the Protestant West).[/b]

I would not say that death is a bar, rather, I would say that sin is the bar and that it simply causes death. This death cannot be changed physically because our flesh has been corrupted but it can be helped in a spiritual sense because we can be spiritually reborn through Christ.

In order for us to live eternally we must have God living inside us because he is the source of life. Thus, whatever hinders God from living inside us or prevents us from hooking up to a God who is a source of all life becomes the bar incarnate. God is said to be holy, or without sin and unable to even look upon sin, therefore, we must deal with this sin before "hooking" up to God's lifesource spiritually. In terms of Biblical theology, it would appear that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is what has the potential for manipulating this unmovable bar of sin in our lives. Through Christ sacrifice God is able to remove our sin from his sight thus enabling him to "hook" us up spiritually to himself thus making us alive spiritually once again. Then when our physical bodies pass our spiritual man continues to live on with God. All that is needed is us placing our faith in terms of what God seems to require for us to be "hooked" back to him once again.

I will not presume to know all of the "ins" and "outs" of my theology. For example, what of the person who has never heard the gospel such as those who have died before Christ? What of the person who is incapable of understanding the gospel such as the mentally challenged? What of the person deceived and blinded from recieving the gospel etc. etc. I will only say that I believe Christ's sacrifice is the source for God being able to move the seemingly immovable bar of sin in our lives that would otherwise seperate us from him forever. This occurs through our faith via our consent or perhaps it is given to us freely if unable to consent for any of the reasons that I have just mentioned. Also, perhaps those unable to make a decision in this current life will be given a chance somewhere down the road? Only God knows really. All I know is what God seems to be telling me and that is to place my faith in him. All that is asked of me is to have simple childlike faith. I simply plug myself into his life source through my consent or faith in him and let him worry about the rest.