04 Aug 06
Originally posted by amannionI was answering the OP
Isn't all this devil and torture and hell stuff a bit childish?
I mean, c'mon.
There is no santa claus!
The whole prove God exists / doesn't exist thing is a dead end.... there is not definitive proof either way, so actually going on a tangent at this point will not accomplish much more than muddle the content of the thread
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by damage79But these are the humans who God hates too - he is punishing them for being evil or not believing in Jesus, or whatever.
The devil will torture those who go to Hell, because he hates God, and humans are created in God's image. So in an attempt to hurt God, he hurts His creation
Therefore the enemy of God must the the friend of the enemy of God.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by damage79So surely if there is no proof either way then the logical thing to do is follow the path with the least number of assumptions (Occam's Razor). And that would be not believing in God.
I was answering the OP
The whole prove God exists / doesn't exist thing is a dead end.... there is not definitive proof either way, so actually going on a tangent at this point will not accomplish much more than muddle the content of the thread
Why aren't you logical?
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by howardgeeGod does not hate the humans who will dwell in Hell, but He is righteous and just, and those who will not accept Jesus (and the fact that He bore the weight of their sin), they must bear the consequences of their own sin.... in Hell. God does not hate them, but He cannot allow unredeemed people to dwell with Him. So, we those in Hell are not enemies of God, He mourns that everyone does not choose Jesus, but choices have consequences....
But these are the humans who God hates too - he is punishing them for being evil or not believing in Jesus, or whatever.
Therefore the enemy of God must the the friend of the enemy of God.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZLogic isn't proof
So surely if there is no proof either way then the logical thing to do is follow the path with the least number of assumptions (Occam's Razor). And that would be not believing in God.
Why aren't you logical?
I do apply logical thought to the evidence I have and enquire further where required,
I also give consideration to the experiences I have had (although you would not consider this evidence, hence the divide between aethiest and theist)
So, taking into consideration all my experiences and observed evidence, I choose to believe as I do.... as you have not experienced what I have experienced, you will perhaps not be persuaded by my lines of logic.
FYI, I am definitely a logical person, scientifically inclined, analytical thought processes.... I do not make decisions lightly. I have a BSc, honors and PhD in geology.... and this happily gels with my belief in the God of the bible
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGod is Holy, Righteous, Just
Why?
He is Holy, anything unholy in His presence would be destroyed by His holiness (IMO)
He is Righteous and Just. He has made a way for sinners to become holy in His sight (accepting Jesus' sacrifice), How is it just, if he were to allow the sinners (who scorn Jesus' sacrifice) into His presence also?
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by damage79You're wrong about atheists not considering the evidence of experiences, at least you're wrong about me anyway.
Logic isn't proof
I do apply logical thought to the evidence I have and enquire further where required,
I also give consideration to the experiences I have had (although you would not consider this evidence, hence the divide between aethiest and theist)
So, taking into consideration all my experiences and observed evidence, I choose to believe as I do. ...[text shortened]... BSc, honors and PhD in geology.... and this happily gels with my belief in the God of the bible
I do consider personal experiences to be valid evidence.
Where an atheist will differ over a religious person however, is in the interpretation of personal experiences.
I read a lot in these posts about people and the wonderous experiences they've had that have opened their eyes to the lord. It's not that I don't believe people have these experiences - hearing voices, feeling presences, overwhelmed with feelings, and many other subjective personal experiences. I'm sure these are valid.
I have them too.
Where we differ is that I don't attribute them to supernatural causes - a creator god for example.
I prefer natural causes and explanations.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by amannionThanks for the reply
You're wrong about atheists not considering the evidence of experiences, at least you're wrong about me anyway.
I do consider personal experiences to be valid evidence.
Where an atheist will differ over a religious person however, is in the interpretation of personal experiences.
I read a lot in these posts about people and the wonderous experiences th ...[text shortened]... pernatural causes - a creator god for example.
I prefer natural causes and explanations.
I guess this is an example of using the same/similar data set to generate differing theories/models
As I have more experiences and gather more evidence (research), I upgrade and adapt my theory/model
While you may put boundaries on your model that befit the natural realm, I put my boundaries in a place that complies with the bible( these encompass the natural and then some), and test it within these parameters