Originally posted by vistesd1. The "us" is mankind.
1. Who is “us”? (In that “success” part.)
2. I thought that the “son” was in fact God incarnate himself. (You may not be a Trinitarian Christian, however.)
3. Mankind isn’t saved; only believers.
I’ve asked this question before (though maybe not of you): In your religion is the wages of sin death; or is the wages of sin eternal living misery?
2. I am a Trinitarian, however, I am merely distinguishing between the Father and Son as does the Bible.
3. It is true that only those who have faith are saved. Put another way, it is only those who agree wtih what God has to say or through their free will consent with what he has to say are saved. So what about what God has to say don't you agree with?
As for you last question, I will simply say "yes". The wages of sin is suffering and death. One can see the truth in such beliefs as those who "sin" suffer for their wrong doings. However, we get all up in arms thinking that such suffering could be eternal rather than merely temperal.
Originally posted by whodeyThen mankind is not saved; only believers.
1. The "us" is mankind.
2. I am a Trinitarian, however, I am merely distinguishing between the Father and Son as does the Bible.
3. It is true that only those who have faith are saved. Put another way, it is only those who agree wtih what God has to say or through their free will consent with what he has to say are saved. So what about what God has ...[text shortened]... all up in arms thinking that such suffering could be eternal rather than merely temperal.
Then the wages of sin is eternal suffering as well as death.
I would never create a hell—whether that be a quality of being or a place—to which those I love would be condemned for rejecting me.
And, yes, it is the eternal state of suffering—presumably set up by your God—that is the problem. It represents neither love nor justice, only the vindictiveness of a jilted lover.
Originally posted by vistesdThe free will in question revolves around accepting/rejecting him. Adam and Eve had made their choice and were subsequently dealt with.
[b]So. God did not violate their free will when he kicked them out of the garden? God does not violate free will of sinners when he has them killed?
As for you last bit, it is a bit more complex. God still wanted us to have the choice to be restored to him even though this choice was taken away via Adam. Only through Chirst would we truly have that choice restored and only through the long hard journey of the Jewish nation filled with blood sweat and tears could the Messiah have been brought into this world.
Originally posted by whodeyI see: I have free will to accept or reject God—until I reject him.
The free will in question revolves around accepting/rejecting him. Adam and Eve had made their choice and were subsequently dealt with.
As for you last bit, it is a bit more complex. God still wanted us to have the choice to be restored to him even though this choice was taken away via Adam. Only through Chirst would we truly have that choice restored ...[text shortened]... sh nation filled with blood sweat and tears could the Messiah have been brought into this world.
So, if my wife rejects my love, I am then free to violate her free will by making sure that she “suffers the consequences”? And I can still call that love?
By the way, since I don't think that your God is real, the Christ part of it is unlikely to resolve that problem.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdLets assume the following:
I would never create a hell—whether that be a quality of being or a place—to which those I love would be condemned for rejecting me.
1. One must have free will to have a mutually loving relationship with God.
2. This possible rejection of God creates sin.
3. God must respect free will in regards to people choosing sin because love dictates the ability to choose and he is a God of love.
4. Sin brings suffering until it is completly removed from both ones own person and the environment in which they live whether it be temperal or eternal.
5. God hates suffering because he is a God of love, therefore, God seeks to erradicate all sin.
Now lets make you God. How do you remedy the situation?
Originally posted by whodeyOne of these days, I’m going to ask you to enumerate my sins as a result of my disbelief in your God.
Lets assume the following:
1. One must have free will to have a mutually loving relationship with God.
2. This possible rejection of God creates sin.
3. God must respect free will in regards to people choosing sin because love dictates the ability to choose and he is a God of love.
4. Sin brings suffering until it is completly removed from both ones own ...[text shortened]... re, God seeks to erradicate all sin.
Now lets make you God. How do you remedy the situation?
With that said—
I have stated many times how I would deal with the situation if I were an omnipotent God—and I alluded to it again in my post about instantly healing the fellow who wants to harm my wife. I have detailed—in great detail and over and over again—the Orthodox Christian viewpoint of salvation as healing. You simply dismiss that without comment; I’m not going to go to the trouble to present it all once again. God apparently cannot heal—including healing what you might say is my illusory disbelief in his existence; although you may well assert that I very well know that God exists and am only rejecting him in order to sin. If you do that, however, I will call you a nasty (but accurate) name. 😉
Now, you are the one who said something about all the fuss being about whether hell represents eternal suffering or only a limited period of suffering—which is it?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course the question is the problem here.
Name some atrocities that have been carried out in the name of atheism.
Much the same as "religious" wars, "atheistic" wars don't exist either.
Religion, atheism, culture, etc. are just means to an end; a way of motivating the plebs to die for you.
Originally posted by vistesdI would not say that God does not have the ability to heal and, in fact, salvation could be refered to as such. However, God told Adam and Eve that if you sin you die. Can God then revoke this command and allow them to live? Now if God goes against this spiritual law, then it would make him a liar. Also, if it was not a spiritual law in the first place, then how could God embrace what goes against his perfect will if he is a God of love/life, assuming his perfect will is what is best for us and it is conducive for life sustaining effects? What you have done is rejected God's will who is the source of life. Now that you have rejected it the only option is death. To make my point clearer, lets say God is the source of death and you reject him. What would you then be embracing other than life?
One of these days, I’m going to ask you to enumerate my sins as a result of my disbelief in your God.
With that said—
I have stated many times how I would deal with the situation if I were an omnipotent God—and I alluded to it again in my post about instantly healing the fellow who wants to harm my wife. I have detailed—in great detail and over and ov ...[text shortened]... out whether hell represents eternal suffering or only a limited period of suffering—which is it?
For me the healing process begins when one reassumes faith in God or reassumes their faith in the source of life/love. Then God can move again to do so because we have given him consent via our faith.
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdThis is an interesting question. What is the equivalence of the rejection of God? It takes me back to Davids sin when he took the woman in adultery and then had her husband killed. God asked him an interesting question, namely, he asked why it was that he hated God? In effect, God identified David's rejection of his laws as a rejection of himself because the laws of God are grounded in love. Therefore, once we reject these laws grounded in love God identifies it as a personal rejection of himself. Now when in your life have you broken the law of love? Put another way, have you ever lied? Have you ever cheated etc?
although you may well assert that I very well know that God exists and am only rejecting him in order to sin. If you do that, however, I will call you a nasty (but accurate) name. 😉
Now for calling me that nasty but accurate name, be careful now. We would'nt want to break the law of love do we? Just kidding.
Perhaps we should even go back to the first sin which was Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit. Why was this the rejection of the law of love?
Originally posted by vistesdBoth. Suffering is suffering. You can have degrees of suffering I suppose and timelines of suffering that are temperal compared to eternal. In this world there are many "hellish" existences and the further we wander from the love of God the greater the hell we experience.
Now, you are the one who said something about all the fuss being about whether hell represents eternal suffering or only a limited period of suffering—which is it?[/b]
I think what is being asked here is when is the line crossed that salvation/healing is no longer an option, thus suffering becomes eternal?
Originally posted by whodeySo long as people consider atheism the rejection of God they're missing the point. You can't see atheism in religious terms.
This is an interesting question. What is the equivalence of the rejection of God? It takes me back to Davids sin when he took the woman in adultery and then had her husband killed. God asked him an interesting question, namely, he asked why it was that he hated God? In effect, God identified David's rejection of his laws as a rejection of himself because ...[text shortened]... Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit. Why was this the rejection of the law of love?
Atheism is the recognition that there is no god, there has never been one and there never will be.
Hypothetically, let's say that everyone in the world had CONCLUSIVE proof that God never existed (this is impossible in reality because he's not disprovable but this is hypothetical). Wouldn't the world today seem ridiculous? People doing something they otherwise would not do but for their religion would have no further justification for acting in such a senseless manner. Whether in North America, Asia, Africa, religion cannot be separated from the goings on of the people, either in law or in their day to day lives.
Well, THERE IS NO GOD AND EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING DONE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS A WASTE!!! This is the scenario we are in! Religious people just can't see it from the outside because they have not got rid of their justification.
As for atheist wars, no such thing has ever existed. People who don't understand this do not understand causality.
Because an atheist kills someone doesn't mean it's because of his atheism. Stalin's purges wiped out lots of atheists too. Just because he killed religious people and took down all signs of religions doesn't mean he was against religion per se. He was against anything that stood in his way. If there was a group of atheism united in a similar manner he would have done the same thing to them.
This thread is a joke.