# What does the life of an atheist "look" like?



## gordon 2 (Jan 19, 2015)

This is a strait forward question, no fishing, no agenda.

What does the atheist world look like and how do you live in it?

For example, I'm not an atheist and my world and my life is a quest for the "zone" or for the instinctive. I want to get where second nature is first nature if that is possible. A real example might be my hunting preference. I like still hunting or instinctive hunting as opposed to calculated-camera- scientific hunting. For me that kind of hunting, is not hunting. I understand that for some it is not so. My spiritual life is really a quest for the instinctive--for the "zone" were life is most meaningful to me. 

Now I understand that atheist, if I am correct, draw from logic, reason, scientific data in their orientations to living. If I am correct what does it look like in your world? I really don't know.  Is everything calculated? Relationships? Expectations? Work? Dreams? What deer to pull the trigger on?

I "hope" ( I hope a lot.) someone will understand my question and care to respond. I judge not, I just want to understand.

It just occurs to me that your world seems overwhelming for me. What is it like for you?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 19, 2015)

How did your life look before your salvation? I'm just wondering if one could compare that time. Unless you converted at a young age as I did.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How did your life look before your salvation? I'm just wondering if one could compare that time. Unless you converted at a young age as I did.



I think were talking apples here Art. I want to talk oranges. 

If I understand correctly atheist are such by choice, ( no predestination is their's)  and that choice is a difficult one because one has to buck the "salvation culture" most were born into.  I never felt the need to fight that culture Art and really am as a foreigner to theirs. ( Maybe.) I really don't know how to formulate my questions... Art.

I watched a video on first contact with Brazilian indigenous people last night and it occurs to me " How do I communicate with atheists about their lives without  someone giving the other the pox and upsetting each others ways of life?"  Hope you understand.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think were talking apples here Art. I want to talk oranges.
> 
> If I understand correctly atheist are such by choice, ( no predestination is their's)  and that choice is a difficult one because one has to buck the "salvation culture" most were born into.  I never felt the need to fight that culture Art and really am as a foreigner to theirs. ( Maybe.) I really don't know how to formulate my questions... Art.
> 
> I watched a video on first contact with Brazilian indigenous people last night and it occurs to me " How do I communicate with atheists about their lives without  someone giving the other the pox and upsetting each others ways of life?"  Hope you understand.





> " How do I communicate with atheists about their lives without  someone giving the other the pox and upsetting each others ways of life?"


Im Agnostic not Atheist but -
Formulate opinions of each other based on actions not beliefs. Can be hard to do and not everybody can communicate with everybody.
Both sides have to want to communicate and be willing to put in the effort.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think were talking apples here Art. I want to talk oranges.
> 
> If I understand correctly atheist are such by choice, ( no predestination is their's)  and that choice is a difficult one because one has to buck the "salvation culture" most were born into.  I never felt the need to fight that culture Art and really am as a foreigner to theirs. ( Maybe.) I really don't know how to formulate my questions... Art.
> 
> I watched a video on first contact with Brazilian indigenous people last night and it occurs to me " How do I communicate with atheists about their lives without  someone giving the other the pox and upsetting each others ways of life?"  Hope you understand.



Ah yes, the old pox and a Bible thing again. You take the bad with the good.
I do understand what you are talking about with the Atheists. I guess I'm guilty of trying to overturn the, orange cart?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im Agnostic not Atheist but -
> Formulate opinions of each other based on actions not beliefs. Can be hard to do and not everybody can communicate with everybody.
> Both sides have to want to communicate and be willing to put in the effort.



I guess your right. Your right about an honest effort and the work involved. Perhaps this tread will not go to 300 posts like most  do here. Or it will.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 19, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I guess your right. Your right about an honest effort and the work involved. Perhaps this tread will not go to 300 posts like most  do here. Or it will.


It only goes 300 posts when we argue/debate. Your post isn't formulated like that.
But your question is also kind of complicated, to me anyway, because not all Atheists "see" life the same way or Agnostics or Christians etc  Even if you remove belief or not in God people still have a lot of differences.
But my observation is, in a super simplified answer, is that the day to day lives are pretty much identical except one group goes to church.
A belief in God affects how you view things a lot more than how you do things. An Atheist might see a pretty flower while out hunting. You see a pretty flower that God put there while out hunting.. But its still a flower and its still pretty and both are still hunting. 3 things in common. 1 that is not.
Without trying to be insulting, the Christian in every other aspect of life uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc. Its just when it comes to God you use faith.
For example if you go to buy a car you don't just show up at the dealership expecting God to pick you out a car and get you the best price. You look at reviews, logically determine what kind of vehicle you need, how much you should pay for a particular car etc etc. 
Might be a bad example but I hope you get my meaning.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Without trying to be insulting, the Christian in every other aspect of life uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc. Its just when it comes to God you use faith.


When it comes to God, the Christian has Faith, Logic and Reason. Science is viewed logically... as superstition.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

I would wager that life of an atheist is not that much different from the life of a Christian.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> When it comes to God, the Christian has Faith, Logic and Reason. Science is viewed logically... as superstition.


faith
 (feɪθ) 
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith. 
3.  (Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4.  (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)

No Gem you have faith. The definition of faith excludes logic and reason.
I don't understand why this seems to be a sticking point to a lot of you guys. Are you more comfortable with your beliefs if you think they are based on logic and reason and not just faith?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> faith
> (feɪθ)
> n
> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
> ...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It only goes 300 posts when we argue/debate. Your post isn't formulated like that.
> But your question is also kind of complicated, to me anyway, because not all Atheists "see" life the same way or Agnostics or Christians etc  Even if you remove belief or not in God people still have a lot of differences.
> But my observation is, in a super simplified answer, is that the day to day lives are pretty much identical except one group goes to church.
> A belief in God affects how you view things a lot more than how you do things. An Atheist might see a pretty flower while out hunting. You see a pretty flower that God put there while out hunting.. But its still a flower and its still pretty and both are still hunting. 3 things in common. 1 that is not.
> ...




Thanks again. So I'm gona repeat what I think I learned from your post.

 {Atheists and Christians both use logic and reason other than when it comes to God. For the most part their worlds looks the same. Atheists continue to use reason regards God . "Believers" ( this is where things change) switch from logic and the reasonable, from the scientific method to faith.}


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Thanks again. So I'm gona repeat what I think I learned from your post.
> 
> {Atheists and Christians both use logic and reason other than when it comes to God. For the most part their worlds looks the same. Atheists continue to use reason regards God . "Believers" ( this is where things change) switch from logic and the reasonable, from the scientific method to faith.}


First I have to say we are talking "in general". I know some Atheists that I find very unreasonable etc.
And of course this is how I personally see it.


> Atheists and Christians both use logic and reason other than when it comes to God.


Yes


> For the most part their worlds looks the same.


The tricky part here is your use of "looks". To someone else they look the same unless you see one of them praying before dinner or going to church etc.


> Atheists continue to use reason regards God


Yes, and logic and require proof.


> "Believers" ( this is where things change) switch from logic and the reasonable, from the scientific method to faith.


Yes. You cant get to God using logic and reason because its not logical or reasonable to believe in something you cant prove exists. That's where faith comes in.
And I have to add that logic and reason don't always prove to be right. Our logic and reason are all based on what we know/available information. At one time it was logical and reasonable to think the earth was flat because there was no information to tell us differently.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> {Atheists and Christians both use logic and reason other than when it comes to God.


 Much of that is the same too. You don't believe in every god, atheist just went one god further.


> "Believers" ( this is where things change) switch from logic and the reasonable, from the scientific method to faith.}


 Yes, but only for the God of their choice.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No Gem you have faith. The definition of faith excludes logic and reason.
> I don't understand why this seems to be a sticking point to a lot of you guys.


An unbiblical definition would not apply to a Christian.


WaltL1 said:


> Are you more comfortable with your beliefs if you think they are based on logic and reason and not just faith?


I wouldn't know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It only goes 300 posts when we argue/debate. Your post isn't formulated like that.
> But your question is also kind of complicated, to me anyway, because not all Atheists "see" life the same way or Agnostics or Christians etc  Even if you remove belief or not in God people still have a lot of differences.
> But my observation is, in a super simplified answer, is that the day to day lives are pretty much identical except one group goes to church.
> A belief in God affects how you view things a lot more than how you do things. An Atheist might see a pretty flower while out hunting. You see a pretty flower that God put there while out hunting.. But its still a flower and its still pretty and both are still hunting. 3 things in common. 1 that is not.
> ...





> Without trying to be insulting, the Christian in every other aspect of life uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc. Its just when it comes to God you use faith.



I know you aren't trying to, but there's no way you can make that statement without being insulting.

I could make the same statement regarding Atheism(not agnosticism).  Why?  Because both are declarative positions that require some degree of trust in order to hold.  I think what's being missed in this are that people of both beliefs do just as you say "uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc." to live out every other aspect of their lives, so isn't it a bit insulting to make the statement that they (either believers and atheist) check their reason and logic at the door when it comes to their beliefs?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> so isn't it a bit insulting to make the statement that they (either believers and atheist) check their reason and logic at the door when it comes to their beliefs?



It shouldn't be insulting. 
Religion was invented to fill the gaps of the unknown.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I know you aren't trying to, but there's no way you can make that statement without being insulting.
> 
> I could make the same statement regarding Atheism(not agnosticism).  Why?  Because both are declarative positions that require some degree of trust in order to hold.  I think what's being missed in this are that people of both beliefs do just as you say "uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc." to live out every other aspect of their lives, so isn't it a bit insulting to make the statement that they (either believers and atheist) check their reason and logic at the door when it comes to their beliefs?



Yes, and, IMO, deservedly so. Not because they deserve to be insulted, but because the statement fits. 

Reason and logic only get you so far on each path. There is a leap of faith that those two, or anything like them, can't cross.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> It shouldn't be insulting.
> Religion was invented to fill the gaps of the unknown.



Like some mathematical formulations? Like an imaginary friend in a vast equation?

You use invented loosely right?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I know you aren't trying to, but there's no way you can make that statement without being insulting.
> 
> I could make the same statement regarding Atheism(not agnosticism).  Why?  Because both are declarative positions that require some degree of trust in order to hold.  I think what's being missed in this are that people of both beliefs do just as you say "uses logic, reason, scientific data etc etc." to live out every other aspect of their lives, so isn't it a bit insulting to make the statement that they (either believers and atheist) check their reason and logic at the door when it comes to their beliefs?





> I know you aren't trying to, but there's no way you can make that statement without being insulting.


Of course I can, its true. Not because I say its true but because of the definition of those words. I even said I wasn't trying to be insulting because it required being read without emotion.


> so isn't it a bit insulting to make the statement that they (either believers and atheist) check their reason and logic at the door when it comes to their beliefs?


Again No.
Your religious beliefs require faith. See the definition of faith as it pertains to reason and logic. 
Ive stood up enough times for you guys when these drive by Atheists/Agnostics come in here calling you stupid etc for believing what you do. I would hope we were past the Im insulting you stage.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> An unbiblical definition would not apply to a Christian.
> 
> I wouldn't know.


Ok Gem. 
I hope STOP is biblical when you come to a stop sign because I don't want to see you get hurt.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, and, IMO, deservedly so. Not because they deserve to be insulted, but because the statement fits.
> 
> Reason and logic only get you so far on each path. There is a leap of faith that those two, or anything like them, can't cross.



No doubt, but I think it's insulting because it implies that when it comes to the unknown any "faith" either in God or not in God, the person who lives every other aspect of his life using reason, somehow discards it and makes a blind leap.  My point is that I think neither make a blind leap.  They both make leaps?  Yes.  But they are leaps that are based on reasoning.  To imply differently is to cast an insult regardless of which way one is leaping.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course I can, its true. Not because I say its true but because of the definition of those words. I even said I wasn't trying to be insulting because it required being read without emotion.
> 
> Again No.
> Your religious beliefs require faith. See the definition of faith as it pertains to reason and logic.
> Ive stood up enough times for you guys when these drive by Atheists/Agnostics come in here calling you stupid etc for believing what you do. I would hope we were past the Im insulting you stage.



Yes, but it's faith based on reason.  Not faith without reason;  that's what comes across as insulting.  And again it's splitting hairs on the insulting part, but it's certainly not a compliment.

And again Walt, I'm sure you don't mean it as an insult.  I did not take it as such.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes, but it's faith based on reason.  Not faith without reason;  that's what comes across as insulting.  And again it's splitting hairs on the insulting part, but it's certainly not a compliment.
> 
> And again Walt, I'm sure you don't mean it as an insult.  I did not take it as such.


Using reason -
v. verb
1.To determine or conclude by logical thinking.
2.To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons.
3.To use the faculty of reason; think logically.

Logic can not get you to God because you cant prove he exists. God can only be the creator if he actually exists. If he doesn't exist, he didn't create.
Enter faith.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok Gem.
> I hope STOP is biblical when you come to a stop sign because I don't want to see you get hurt.


In that context, I hope that we would infer the same meaning of the word "stop".


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Like an imaginary friend in a vast equation?


 Just like an imaginary friend. 



> You use invented loosely right?



No.
To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SFD lets do this -
You walk outside to get in your car and notice you have a flat tire.
Pick out the logical and reasonable reasons for it from this list -
1. There is a nail in it.
2. The seal is broken.
3. The tire is old and developed rot.
4. Superman let the air out of your tire as a joke.
Tell us why the ones you picked are reasonable and logical.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Using reason -
> v. verb
> 1.To determine or conclude by logical thinking.
> 2.To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons.
> ...



No but logic and reason can certainly make the case that there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about the concept of the Judeo Christian God existing, therefore it's not an illogical or unreasonable concept.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD lets do this -
> You walk outside to get in your car and notice you have a flat tire.
> Pick out the logical and reasonable reasons for it from this list -
> 1. There is a nail in it.
> ...



It would be based on the evidence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It would be based on the evidence.


Agreed.
The evidence of a nail being in it is that there is a nail in it.
The evidence of a broken seal is a broken seal.
The evidence that it was rotten is that there is rot on it.
The evidence that Superman did it well..... first Superman has to be proven to be real before you can attribute any evidence to him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No doubt, but I think it's insulting because it implies that when it comes to the unknown any "faith" either in God or not in God, the person who lives every other aspect of his life using reason, somehow discards it and makes a blind leap.  My point is that I think neither make a blind leap.  They both make leaps?  Yes.  But they are leaps that are based on reasoning.  To imply differently is to cast an insult regardless of which way one is leaping.



Imagine crossing the grand canyon by making a leap. You had ground under you on one side, logic and reasoning, then there was the gap in the middle where there was, essentially, nothing. Then on the other side you landed in faith. You can't know if the ground is solid, for certain, until you land. There's no way to poke it with a stick to make sure. 

The blind aspect is a little misleading, but the leap is factual. If that's an insult, I'm sorry, but I do agree that both atheists and believers make the same leap, just in opposing directions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

Hey  Walt.  Work constraints aren't gonna allow me to keep up with 3 separate threads and do justice to give your responses in here the attention they deserve.  Given this thread has gravitated off the topic with our help can we just end it here and maybe pick it up later.  I'm in two other running threads here and to be honest, I was days behind in my replies when I got back to them today.   I'm either gonna have to make a commitment to myself to keep my replies to one open thread at a time, or just quit altogether.  It's not fair of me to engage in a topic with someone and then be days posting a reply to them, but work dictates come first.  Sorry


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Imagine crossing the grand canyon by making a leap. You had ground under you on one side, logic and reasoning, then there was the gap in the middle where there was, essentially, nothing. Then on the other side you landed in faith. You can't know if the ground is solid, for certain, until you land. There's no way to poke it with a stick to make sure.
> 
> The blind aspect is a little misleading, but the leap is factual. If that's an insult, I'm sorry, but I do agree that both atheists and believers make the same leap, just in opposing directions.



Agree 100%. And again the only point that I was attempting to make was that the leap is based on the individuals reasonable interpretation of the evidence.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> is nothing illogical or unreasonable about the concept of the Judeo Christian God existing, therefore it's not an illogical or unreasonable concept.



So what logic or reasoning did you use to determine the existence of a Judeo Christian God was reasonable but, the 1000s of other Gods were unreasonable?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No but logic and reason can certainly make the case that there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about the concept of the Judeo Christian God existing, therefore it's not an illogical or unreasonable concept.


Ok I can agree with that. Here's why -
Concept
1:  something conceived in the mind :  thought, notion 
2:  an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances 
Thoughts and ideas don't require logic or reason. 
One can imagine anything they want.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey  Walt.  Work constraints aren't gonna allow me to keep up with 3 separate threads and do justice to give your responses in here the attention they deserve.  Given this thread has gravitated off the topic with our help can we just end it here and maybe pick it up later.  I'm in two other running threads here and to be honest, I was days behind in my replies when I got back to them today.   I'm either gonna have to make a commitment to myself to keep my replies to one open thread at a time, or just quit altogether.  It's not fair of me to engage in a topic with someone and then be days posting a reply to them, but work dictates come first.  Sorry


No problem!


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> but I do agree that both atheists and believers make the same leap, just in opposing directions.



I don't but, I am all ears(eyes).


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

> Originally Posted by StripeRR HunteRR View Post
> but I do agree that both atheists and believers make the same leap, just in opposing directions.





660griz said:


> I don't but, I am all ears(eyes).


I want in on this too if that's ok. On the surface Im pretty sure I disagree too but I'm listening.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agree 100%. And again the only point that I was attempting to make was that the leap is based on the individuals reasonable interpretation of the evidence.



Reasonable is like rationalizing. You can reason just about anything like you can rationalize just about anything. 

What I'm talking about is that you can't prove, like 1+2=3, the entire path from 0 to God. There are holes that you have to fill in, or leap, to get there.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I don't but, I am all ears(eyes).





WaltL1 said:


> I want in on this too if that's ok. On the surface Im pretty sure I disagree too but I'm listening.



As SFD said, both are assertive positions based on the same lack of evidence. You can't prove to anyone that God doesn't exist anymore than they can prove to you that He does. The only truly solid footing is  in that it doesn't make a solid statement either way. 

My atheist friend challenges me, when I say this same thing to him, with, "Well, if I say that one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters are, or aren't real, then you have to take the agnostic approach and stay in the middle." 

It infuriates him that I say that he's right. I don't know if they do, or don't exist, so I stay in the middle and say that I just don't know. 

Maybe on some distant planet there is such a creature, we just haven't encountered it yet. Maybe there is a God, there are a right many people in here that seem convinced of the matter. I just haven't encountered Him yet. 

An agnostic view towards such things is the only position that can be traced, 100% to completion, from 0. Mainly because it's still at 0, but any deviation from 0 requires proof to be shown and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither position has such.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As SFD said, both are assertive positions based on the same lack of evidence. You can't prove to anyone that God doesn't exist anymore than they can prove to you that He does. The only truly solid footing is  in that it doesn't make a solid statement either way.


I guess this is where we disagree. I don't have to assert or prove anything. I haven't made any assertions that require proof. I do not spout there is no god. I spout, I don't believe in God...any God. Yes, I think there is a difference. 
The burden of proof is always on the person(s) making the assertion. I cannot prove a negative. 

However, I am always open for being wrong. I don't believe in sasquatch either. However, if somebody shows up with one and discovers a family of them living in the hills, I will say I was wrong. 
Same holds true for:
Santa Claus
Leprechauns
Ghosts
Butterflies on Mars
and God...any God

You gotta stand for something or fall for anything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I guess this is where we disagree. I don't have to assert or prove anything. I haven't made any assertions that require proof. I do not spout there is no god. I spout, I don't believe in God...any God. Yes, I think there is a difference.
> The burden of proof is always on the person(s) making the assertion. I cannot prove a negative.
> 
> However, I am always open for being wrong. I don't believe in sasquatch either. However, if somebody shows up with one and discovers a family of them living in the hills, I will say I was wrong.
> ...



Well, atheism just added a new facet to me. 



> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] *In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities*.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]



This has always been my view of atheism because I had never met anyone who seemed to espouse a different view. 

It seems that you're more like an agnostic, although bent more towards the atheist side, than a true atheist since you're still open to being proven wrong.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, atheism just added a new facet to me.


Nope. I am all atheist. 
From above:
"atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

That pretty much sums me up right there. 
Now, what is a label we can give folks that don't believe in leprechauns?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As SFD said, both are assertive positions based on the same lack of evidence. You can't prove to anyone that God doesn't exist anymore than they can prove to you that He does. The only truly solid footing is  in that it doesn't make a solid statement either way.
> 
> My atheist friend challenges me, when I say this same thing to him, with, "Well, if I say that one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters are, or aren't real, then you have to take the agnostic approach and stay in the middle."
> 
> ...


I think I still disagree but Im not sure if I can defend why 
We are both Agnostic but Ive been wrestling with that lately.
The Atheist says there is no God based on logic and evidence etc.
If I ask myself based on logic and evidence as we sit here today do I believe there is a God, I come up with the same answer as no.
Adding in that "but there might be" doesn't change that original no answer we are just basically considering that in the future there could evidence discovered that could change that.
I'm starting to wonder if its a distinction with out much of a difference other than "future considerations".
That something cant be proven to exist is reasonable proof that to our knowledge as we sit here today it doesn't exist. That's not one making an assertion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nope. I am all atheist.
> From above:
> "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"
> 
> ...


See this is what Im talking about -


> "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"


I don't believe that any deities exist.
Does "but there could be" get me off that hook?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> See this is what Im talking about -
> 
> I don't believe that any deities exist.
> Does "but there could be" get me off that hook?



I think a true agnostic searches for the existence of a deity possibly through prayer, etc., and/or searches for evidence against it. At least, I would if I couldn't go one way or another. 

An atheist, doesn't search.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nope. I am all atheist.
> From above:
> "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"
> 
> ...



That statement wasn't about you. My interaction with atheism has added a new facet. It was about my knowledge of atheists growing as I was aware the broader definition existed, I'd just never met anyone who subscribed to it. 

Agaelics?
Aceltics?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think I still disagree but Im not sure if I can defend why
> We are both Agnostic but Ive been wrestling with that lately.
> The Atheist says there is no God based on logic and evidence etc.
> If I ask myself based on logic and evidence as we sit here today do I believe there is a God, I come up with the same answer as no.
> ...



There's the assertion. Agnosticism is characterized by a lack of knowing. Once you say that there are no, or is no, Gods today you've made an assertion to the negative. Leaving the possibility open for later doesn't wash away the assertion made today. For example, just because a million dollars doesn't exist in your world today, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all. 

That's why you don't hear, or read, me rail against a generic God; just the notion of one religion thinking they have a bead on him where others don't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think a true agnostic searches for the existence of a deity possibly through prayer, etc., and/or searches for evidence against it. At least, I would if I couldn't go one way or another.
> 
> An atheist, doesn't search.


Ok now that's a good point and one I hadn't considered.
Very good point.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's the assertion. Agnosticism is characterized by a lack of knowing. Once you say that there are no, or is no, Gods today you've made an assertion to the negative. Leaving the possibility open for later doesn't wash away the assertion made today. For example, just because a million dollars doesn't exist in your world today, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all.
> 
> That's why you don't hear, or read, me rail against a generic God; just the notion of one religion thinking they have a bead on him where others don't.


And your points tie into Griz's point.
Thanks to both of you for your views. Got some perspective to think about that I wasn't considering.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And your points tie into Griz's point.
> Thanks to both of you for your views. Got some perspective to think about that I wasn't considering.



No worries. Happy to help.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 20, 2015)

I will add, though, that I don't agree with Griz' opinion that searching is a requisite to be an agnostic. Sure, if you don't know AND don't research the other views then you are, by default, ignorant of them and not just unknowing in your beliefs, but there's nothing that says a person can't be ignorant. 

Plenty of that down in the PF to prove my point.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 20, 2015)

Even Dawkins has said that he's 99.999% sure that there is no god but i would say that's enough to call him an atheist.  He does.

I'm 99.999999999999999% sure that leprechauns don't exist.  I  would still say that I don't believe that leprechauns exist.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> However, I am always open for being wrong. I don't believe in sasquatch either. However, if somebody shows up with one and discovers a family of them living in the hills, I will say I was wrong.
> Same holds true for:
> Santa Claus
> Leprechauns
> ...



 I held God to that standard for a spell in my life. Nothing and I mean nothing anyone said could give me the faith I needed to believe. Thats why I dont witness much, its usually futile until the God almighty steps in and makes Himself known to the individual.
 I dont want anyone believing in god I told them about, I want them to know the one and true living God almighty, and pray each of you have that moment in your life when there's an awakening of Him and you can become one of His, but until then.... I cant say I blame you for being critical.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I held God to that standard for a spell in my life. Nothing and I mean nothing anyone said could give me the faith I needed to believe. Thats why I dont witness much, its usually futile until the God almighty steps in and makes Himself known to the individual.
> I dont want anyone believing in god I told them about, I want them to know the one and true living God almighty, and pray each of you have that moment in your life when there's an awakening of Him and you can become one of His, but until then.... I cant say I blame you for being critical.



That's fair and honest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

> Originally Posted by hobbs27 View Post
> I held God to that standard for a spell in my life. Nothing and I mean nothing anyone said could give me the faith I needed to believe. Thats why I dont witness much, its usually futile until the God almighty steps in and makes Himself known to the individual.
> I dont want anyone believing in god I told them about, I want them to know the one and true living God almighty, and pray each of you have that moment in your life when there's an awakening of Him and you can become one of His, but until then.... I cant say I blame you for being critical





ambush80 said:


> That's fair and honest.


Unfortunately thats not going to help me. I have an additional problem. 
As a believer I had problems morally about what I had to believe. That was the basis of my search for "proof".
So if tomorrow the Christian God appeared before me and gave me all the proof I needed that he existed, I still wouldn't worship him.
So basically Im burning no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately thats not going to help me. I have an additional problem.
> As a believer I had problems morally about what I had to believe. That was the basis of my search for "proof".
> So if tomorrow the Christian God appeared before me and gave me all the proof I needed that he existed, I still wouldn't worship him.
> So basically Im burning no matter how you look at it.



I take it you don't believe in "Irresistible Grace?"
What problems did you incur about morals? God's such as salvation to a select few, or yours to not accept homosexuals & women preachers?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I take it you don't believe in "Irresistible Grace?"
> What problems did you incur about morals? God's such as salvation to a select few, or yours to not accept homosexuals & women preachers?





> I take it you don't believe in "Irresistible Grace?"


Its not something I was ever taught however what I do know about it conflicts with what I was taught. Some of it makes sense, some of it doesn't.


> What problems did you incur about morals? God's such as salvation to a select few, or yours to not accept homosexuals & women preachers?


I have issues with "If you don't believe in me you burn".
I have issues with the Flood.
I have issues with all the hypocricy.
I have issues with all the racism.
I have issues with its not what you do its what you believe.
I have issues with the fear tactics.
I have issues with what I have to believe about other people without even knowing them.
I have issues with the selfishness.
I have issues with old folks being prompted to tithe out of their Social Security check while the Vatican sits on billions. God doesn't seem to have a problem with that. 
I have lots of issues that I cant in good conscience ignore just so I get a ticket to Heaven.
Besides even if I fake it God's going to know what I really think so why fake it.
If the Bible is the Word of God then these are Gods ideas/requirements. 
I personally worship none of these ideas/requirements so I wont worship God and accept whatever punishment there is for that.
And I recognize that these are my personal issues and don't expect anybody to have the same issues.

So for me its goes a lot deeper than if God exists or not.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not something I was ever taught however what I do know about it conflicts with what I was taught. Some of it makes sense, some of it doesn't.
> 
> I have issues with "If you don't believe in me you burn".
> I have issues with the Flood.
> ...



Art...I think he has issues with "people"  and what " people" teach vs an Almighty God and what the Bible actually teaches.....I have an issue with those people too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Art...I think he has issues with "people"  and what " people" teach vs an Almighty God and what the Bible actually teaches.....I have an issue with those people too.


Nope.
Other than you can make a case about tithing not be being Biblical its straight out of the Bible.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Nope.
> Other than you can make a case about tithing not be being Biblical its straight out of the Bible.



He11 isn't, that's straight out of paganism, and mistranslations.

Fear tactics?

Tithing?

It's all people's teaching.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> He11 isn't, that's straight out of paganism, and mistranslations.
> 
> Fear tactics?
> 
> ...


He11 is used as a metaphor to describe eternal punishment. Punishment is a fear tactic. It doesn't say "you will be left alone". It says" punishment" and that describes what it is meant in the mind of God to be. A punishment. You can go back to your "you chose it" argument if you want but that doesn't change what "punishment" is used to try to accomplish.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> He11 isn't, that's straight out of paganism, and mistranslations.
> 
> Fear tactics?
> 
> ...


You left off racism and hypocrisy and what you have to believe about other people and its not what you do its what you believe.
Want to discuss those?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> He11 is used as a metaphor to describe eternal punishment. Punishment is a fear tactic. It doesn't say "you will be left alone". It says" punishment" and that describes what it is meant in the mind of God to be. A punishment. You can go back to your "you chose it" argument if you want but that doesn't change what "punishment" is used to try to accomplish.



That may be the English definition, but it is not the definition of the four words translated from the bible. Sheol/ Hades/ Gehenna/& Tarsarus. I will gladly speak more about this and the other issues you bring up, if you really want to. I cut the list short because it was late and I had some Obama sotu bashing to do on face book.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> That may be the English definition, but it is not the definition of the four words translated from the bible. Sheol/ Hades/ Gehenna/& Tarsarus. I will gladly speak more about this and the other issues you bring up, if you really want to. I cut the list short because it was late and I had some Obama sotu bashing to do on face book.


The name assigned to it is meaningless to me.
You can call it Dairy Queen if you want.
I didn't get "eternal punishment" out of the dictionary.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> It needs to. A lot deeper.
> And the depth to which "it" goes is the same for  all.


I agree. And let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I held God to that standard for a spell in my life. Nothing and I mean nothing anyone said could give me the faith I needed to believe. Thats why I dont witness much, its usually futile until the God almighty steps in and makes Himself known to the individual.


 I am sure he could do more than one at a time if he really tried. 



> I dont want anyone believing in god I told them about, I want them to know the one and true living God almighty, and pray each of you have that moment in your life when there's an awakening of Him and you can become one of His,



Based on the reasons most folks I know that have truly 'found' God, I hope I never find him. Finding him is usually the result of some serious error on the persons part, or catastrophe, and they need 'help' to once again become a good person again, or live.  I hope to continue to be strong enough to accept life's hurdles on my own.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The name assigned to it is meaningless to me.
> You can call it Dairy Queen if you want.
> I didn't get "eternal punishment" out of the dictionary.



Eternal punishment is a pagan idea that found its way into Christianity. The Bible teaches Eternal life through Christ or perishment. There's nothing eternal about perishing.
 Sheol/ Hades are the same place, Sheol being from the Hebrew and Hades from the Greek. It was a necessary holding place for both the righteous and unrightous souls under the old covenant that awaited a savior.

Gehenna is an actual place, a place the Jews took their trash, a place known to be cursed nevertheless, you should never translate the name of a place....Georgia is still Georgia regardless of the language...translating that place to be he11,was an error.

Tarsarus is where God held the angels that had taken human wives until the day of judgement....again not a place for eternal punishment.

The lake of fire is where Satan and his/her angels are, it's also the place the unsaved souls will perish...consumed.

If you read the book and come away with an understanding indifferent to a loving, merciful God, you totally failed.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> If you read the book and come away with an understanding indifferent to a loving, merciful God, you totally failed.



Then there's a whole slew of failed preachers out there, too.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

Isn't eternal death without He11 still punishment? It's the opposite of eternal life. It's still the opposite of the reward of everlasting life. It's still the opposite of being with God.
It's still Dairy Queen instead of Heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

Although I'm a Christian, I would be happier with a universal type of salvation or everyone being "elected."
I don't see this as being true but it would be nice.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Isn't eternal death without He11 still punishment? It's the opposite of eternal life. It's still the opposite of the reward of everlasting life. It's still the opposite of being with God.
> It's still New Jersey instead of Heaven.



Adjusted for accuracy. I like DQ.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then there's a whole slew of failed preachers out there, too.



Agree!


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Isn't eternal death without He11 still punishment?



Yes, it's a one time deal though,just as our judicial system can punish someone with a certain amount of years in prison....but there is only one death sentence, it's executed and then over.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Eternal punishment is a pagan idea that found its way into Christianity. The Bible teaches Eternal life through Christ or perishment. There's nothing eternal about perishing.
> Sheol/ Hades are the same place, Sheol being from the Hebrew and Hades from the Greek. It was a necessary holding place for both the righteous and unrightous souls under the old covenant that awaited a savior.
> 
> Gehenna is an actual place, a place the Jews took their trash, a place known to be cursed nevertheless, you should never translate the name of a place....Georgia is still Georgia regardless of the language...translating that place to be he11,was an error.
> ...


You are stuck on "places". I'm not.


> If you read the book and come away with an understanding indifferent to a loving, merciful God, you totally failed.


Thanks for your opinion.
It seems you are completely against false teachings which is how someone understands it and then teaches it but at the same time are completely convinced that your understanding is the correct one. Just as they are.
A very hypocritical position in my opinion.
Note how our understandings are different but I, the nonbeliever, don't have the arrogance, pride or whatever you want to call it to claim you have failed. 
Funny how that works sometimes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Agree!



So who has a bead on things? Each individual?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So who has a bead on things? Each individual?



In general, yes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> In general, yes.



Then how can there be "one true God" if each has their own interpretation?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You are stuck on "places". I'm not.
> 
> Thanks for your opinion.
> It seems you are completely against false teachings which is how someone understands it and then teaches it but at the same time are completely convinced that your understanding is the correct one. Just as they are.
> ...



I am open to debate on anything I declare to know...not that I can win in debate, but that I can know more. Being proven wrong is my way of learning...I wish it wasn't but add stubbornness to the list of arrogance and you see the obstacles I have to overcome. 
 Hypocritical, I don't think. I have been proven wrong many times in the threads upstairs and have to adjust to that new found knowledge as I continue to grow in faith. Facts are facts though, and I do recognize that however arrogant that may be.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then how can there be "one true God" if each has their own interpretation?



 I must be missing the point of your question. No one has everything figured out, God is too complicated for that and our carnal minds. We add to, either by our raising, our financial status, our culture,our geographic s, all these things tend to put us in a place to interpret scriptures in a certain light. The great thing about this though, is God reaches everyone,regardless of social stature, or geographics. Different people worship the one true God in different ways, but there's no one true way that we know of other than our way..


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I must be missing the point of your question. No one has everything figured out, God is too complicated for that and our carnal minds. We add to, either by our raising, our financial status, our culture,our geographic s, all these things tend to put us in a place to interpret scriptures in a certain light. The great thing about this though, is *God reaches everyone*,regardless of social stature, or geographics. Different people worship the one true God in different ways, but there's no one true way that we know of other than our way..



Earlier you referenced a "One, true God." How can anyone claim to know a one true God if everyone's is different, yet they're talking about, supposedly, the same God? 

Second, God does not reach everyone, at least in a way that they can all recognize. If that were the case then there would be 100% faithful, and 0% argument.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Earlier you referenced a "One, true God." How can anyone claim to know a one true God if everyone's is different, yet they're talking about, supposedly, the same God?



I don't think the different interpretations necessarily change who God is...point being Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostals worship the same God and find salvation through Christ, yet they all have their own interpretation s of scripture.
 Then there are others like the Jw's that by interpretation they change who/ what God is. Most Christians do not recognize them as Christians...I could be wrong, but I don't think they approve of being called Christian either.



> Second, God does not reach everyone, at least in a way that they can all recognize. If that were the case then there would be 100% faithful, and 0% argument.


 You're probably right. I have always felt that everyone would get an opportunity, but I don't know anymore.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

If there are different paths to this one true God, man is ignorant, and God must tell us how to reach him?
Is election true? 
Will God hold our ignorance against us?
The native on the small island who throws a goat into the volcano has salvation? He isn't aware that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and continues to sacrifice goats. He hasn't got the memo about Jesus but he does believe in the one true God. He lives a very righteous life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think the different interpretations necessarily change who God is...point being Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostals worship the same God and find salvation through Christ, yet they all have their own interpretation s of scripture.
> Then there are others like the Jw's that by interpretation they change who/ what God is. Most Christians do not recognize them as Christians...I could be wrong, but I don't think they approve of being called Christian either.
> 
> 
> You're probably right. I have always felt that everyone would get an opportunity, but I don't know anymore.



It's strange that God might offer salvation to everyone but you might exclude JW's and possibly Morons. 
They do believe Jesus died for their sins but don't believe in the Trinity. Do you also exclude Oneness believers?

Again does every person have to believe in certain criteria or is salvation from God?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's strange that God might offer salvation to everyone but you might exclude JW's and possibly Morons.
> They do believe Jesus died for their sins but don't believe in the Trinity. Do you also exclude Oneness believers?
> 
> Again does every person have to believe in certain criteria or is salvation from God?



Your asking a mere mortal to interpret scripture?  To discern scripture with his natural mind?  To understand the mind of god?  It can't be done.  

Y'all are schkrewed.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Eternal punishment is a pagan idea that found its way into Christianity.


So what?
1. Pagan's serve God's purpose.
2. The Pagan idea of eternal punishment is more accurate than that of some theologians.


hobbs27 said:


> There's nothing eternal about perishing.


 


hobbs27 said:


> If you read the book and come away with an understanding indifferent to a loving, merciful God, you totally failed.


Do you see God as only loving, only merciful?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I am open to debate on anything I declare to know...not that I can win in debate, but that I can know more. Being proven wrong is my way of learning...I wish it wasn't but add stubbornness to the list of arrogance and you see the obstacles I have to overcome.
> Hypocritical, I don't think. I have been proven wrong many times in the threads upstairs and have to adjust to that new found knowledge as I continue to grow in faith. Facts are facts though, and I do recognize that however arrogant that may be.


I have no desire to prove you wrong nor do I think I could given the subject.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> So what?
> 1. Pagan's serve God's purpose.
> 2. The Pagan idea of eternal punishment is more accurate than that of some theologians.


Maybe so, but not of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.


> Do you see God as only loving, only merciful?



 I would add just, and maybe some other adjectives, but if one reads the scriptures and deny a loving and merciful God they are doing it wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think the different interpretations necessarily change who God is...point being Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostals worship the same God and find salvation through Christ, yet they all have their own interpretation s of scripture.
> Then there are others like the Jw's that by interpretation they change who/ what God is.* Most Christians do not recognize them as Christians...*I could be wrong, but I don't think they approve of being called Christian either.
> 
> 
> You're probably right. I have always felt that everyone would get an opportunity, but I don't know anymore.



And that is the crux of the matter. From the outside, do you know what a non-believer sees? 

A bunch of supposed Christians telling each other that they're not "true" or "real" Christians. 

Truth be told, I've heard that phrase so often that, if they're all true, I seriously doubt I've ever met a real Christian.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's strange that God might offer salvation to everyone but you might exclude JW's and possibly Morons.
> They do believe Jesus died for their sins but don't believe in the Trinity. Do you also exclude Oneness believers?
> 
> 
> ...



I said nothing of their individual salvation, did I?
 My point was, by their interpretation they worship a different God than Christians do. To be considered Christian doesn't one need to recognize the diety of Jesus?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe so, but not of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
> 
> 
> I would add just, and maybe some other adjectives, but if one reads the scriptures and deny a loving and merciful God they are doing it wrong.



He can be loving, merciful, AND vengeful. Just depends on the day, the people, and the circumstances. I wouldn't call the Great Flood loving or merciful. Nor would I call banishment from Eden, or cursing women with Aunt Flow. I know that's all OT, but I'm told the historical accounts are the important takeaways there.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And that is the crux of the matter. From the outside, do you know what a non-believer sees?
> 
> A bunch of supposed Christians telling each other that they're not "true" or "real" Christians.
> 
> Truth be told, I've heard that phrase so often that, if they're all true, I seriously doubt I've ever met a real Christian.



 I don't think they even consider themselves Christians...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think they even consider themselves Christians...



Who's they? The JW's? I wasn't speaking about them. 

I was speaking about all of the mainstream Christians, of Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc. denominations that say that others who disagree with them aren't really Christian if they support X, or don't believe in Y. 

Look back at the threads here, or many in the PF, and see how many times disparate beliefs result in that exact thing being said. 

Westboro-ers aren't real Christians. 
Hitler wasn't a real Christian, not that I'd disagree with that position, or the Westboro one. 

Pro-choicers aren't real Christians. LGBT supporters aren't real Christians. So on, ad nauseam. 

The point being is that, if you listen to every one of them, then they call, at one point, every person of a religion not Christian. Either they're all right, or none of them are, and some skirt the issue by saying that they're faithful Christians as opposed to religious Christians. They believe the story, but not the dogma so to say. 

The end result, regardless of that, is that to the outside you all look like you can't make up your own minds about who, or what, a Christian is or should be. Then you come down and say things like one, true God and I have a personal relationship with Him. 

If "Christians" and "not real Christians" can have a personal relationship with the same guy, and yet be so fractious here on Earth, there's something missing from the math because what I'm getting just doesn't make sense.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to set me straight, and someone shortly thereafter to tell us how we're both, me and the initial corrector, wrong. It's the way of things.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If there are different paths to this one true God, man is ignorant, and God must tell us how to reach him?
> Is election true?
> Will God hold our ignorance against us?
> The native on the small island who throws a goat into the volcano has salvation? He isn't aware that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and continues to sacrifice goats. He hasn't got the memo about Jesus but he does believe in the one true God. He lives a very righteous life.



Long but, good read about a tribe with no god.
https://ffrf.org/publications/freet...rahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

Striperr hunterr 
 Yea I see that and hear that, I don't pay it any attention. When I go to church it's usually a Baptist church only because it's the most dominant church in my area. I have no problems walking into a Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Church of God, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc as long as they give me the freedom to leave when I want to . 

 God is bigger than denominations to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Striperr hunterr
> Yea I see that and hear that, I don't pay it any attention. When I go to church it's usually a Baptist church only because it's the most dominant church in my area. I have no problems walking into a Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Church of God, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc as long as they give me the freedom to leave when I want to .
> 
> God is bigger than denominations to me.



I would think that, as well, but it doesn't change the fact that others disagree with us, and each other, often and vehemently enough to split and then call each other out like that.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2015)

660griz said:


> Long but, good read about a tribe with no god.
> https://ffrf.org/publications/freet...rahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god



That is a fantastic article. Thanks


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Striperr hunterr
> Yea I see that and hear that, I don't pay it any attention. When I go to church it's usually a Baptist church only because it's the most dominant church in my area. I have no problems walking into a Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Church of God, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc as long as they give me the freedom to leave when I want to .
> 
> God is bigger than denominations to me.


Hobbs Im going to be blunt. I cant even count how many times you've contradicted yourself just in this one thread.
Its darn near impossible to figure out what you actually believe.  Maybe its just me, I don't know, but I feel like a dog chasing its tail reading your posts.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> That is a fantastic article. Thanks



You are very welcome. There are definitely some things in there that should make one think. Oh, and laugh.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Hobbs Im going to be blunt. I cant even count how many times you've contradicted yourself just in this one thread.
> Its darn near impossible to figure out what you actually believe.  Maybe its just me, I don't know, but I feel like a dog chasing its tail reading your posts.



It's hard to explain it all in short messages, and I can certainly see why you would think I'm contradicting myself. I don't think that I have though.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 21, 2015)

660griz said:


> You are very welcome. There are definitely some things in there that should make one think. Oh, and laugh.



Good story. Heard This story on the JRE podcast. 

Even though this missionary changed his views eventually, it is a striking example of the drive of Christianity (arrogance) to correct the rest of the world.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Good story. Heard This story on the JRE podcast.
> 
> Even though this missionary changed his views eventually, it is a striking example of the drive of Christianity (arrogance) to correct the rest of the world.


It gave good insight into some of the tactics used.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It gave good insight into some of the tactics used.



Seems that tactic goes back to the beginning. 

Find a similar story within the tradition and twist it to fit Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I said nothing of their individual salvation, did I?
> My point was, by their interpretation they worship a different God than Christians do. To be considered Christian doesn't one need to recognize the diety of Jesus?



If it's all the same one true God and individuals change this God's Word through interpretation, are they still worshiping the same God?
Can we worship the one true God and not know anything about Jesus?
Can we worship the one true God and believe his Son is himself?(Oneness)
Can we worship the one true God and believe his Son is the pre-existing Christ?(Trinity)
Can we worship the one true God and just believe the Son of God in image only but not either of the other forms such as God himself or the pre-existing Christ?(Christian Universalism)
Can we worship the one true God and believe his Son is an adopted human who was made in the image of God?(Christian Universalism)
Can we worship the one true God and believe we have a part in choosing God?

You didn't say anything of salvation. Can any of the above non-Christians have salvation?
Can we worship the one true God and believe we don't have a part in choosing God? Somebody has to be worshiping another God or a different Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

Somebody has to be worshiping another God or a different Jesus. Unless God knows that we are depraved and ignorant. Unless he opens our minds to understanding. 
We can't all be right. Will God hold our ignorance against us? Will God call/awaken/elect everyone? How do we know whom God has revealed his correct story to?

How can God present himself to the whole world and not give the whole world a fighting chance? How can God make someone born a Hindu, Mormon, or Oneness Pentecostal and not give them a chance? Doesn't God realize most people will stay in the Church they were indoctrinated into? Does he blind most of the world on purpose?
Will God have to open the eyes of the Oneness believer? Or if they are correct will God have to open the eyes of the Trinity believers? 

Does just believing in Free will make us boastful and prideful? To even think we could change God's plan, talk about pride. Wouldn't the Elect/predestination believer be more humble and meek knowing God is in total control? Will God hold this against us?

Will all Trinitarian's suffer for worshiping the wrong God? God doesn't like to share his deity. Just think if all of y'all have it wrong.
Believing in the "other" Jesus.

Man can't quit sinning and therefore needs saving. Can man stop being ignorant? Can a blind man see? Does Jesus save us from ignorance? Can God's grace save us from ignorance?
Can God's grace save us from being born into Catholicism or Protesting the Catholic Church? Or from believing Jesus ascended and went to the Americas.

Does God grant waivers for ignorance? Perhaps for wrong biblical interpretations?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If it's all the same one true God and individuals change this God's Word through interpretation, are they still worshiping the same God?
> Can we worship the one true God and not know anything about Jesus?
> Can we worship the one true God and believe his Son is himself?(Oneness)
> Can we worship the one true God and believe his Son is the pre-existing Christ?(Trinity)
> ...



God will save whoever He wants to save, its not to me to judge or question that. If they "once saved" decide to worship in a way contrary to God that will be dealt with them and God.

 With that said, I will not attend a church that teaches Jesus is not of the God-Head, and I will not allow my young daughter to sit under that teaching.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> God will save whoever He wants to save, its not to me to judge or question that. If they "once saved" decide to worship in a way contrary to God that will be dealt with them and God.
> 
> With that said, I will not attend a church that teaches Jesus is not of the God-Head, and I will not allow my young daughter to sit under that teaching.



I didn't know you were Oneness. 

I hope God will save all of the ignorant and the Christians that have a hard time living a Christian life. Even the ones who think they are living right but are ignorant.

Even if I was the most righteous Christian in the whole world, I hope God saves the most wretched Christian ever.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jan 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I didn't know you were Oneness.



 Me either.



Artfuldodger said:


> I hope God will save all of the ignorant and the Christians that have a hard time living a Christian life. Even the ones who think they are living right but are ignorant.
> 
> Even if I was the most righteous Christian in the whole world, I hope God saves the most wretched Christian ever.



Im with you on that!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I didn't know you were Oneness.
> 
> I hope God will save all of the ignorant and the Christians that have a hard time living a Christian life. Even the ones who think they are living right but are ignorant.
> 
> Even if I was the most righteous Christian in the whole world, I hope God saves the most wretched Christian ever.



Would an atheist fit into the bin of "most wretched?"

Serious question.


----------

