# Atheism/Christianity.  A Commonality, A Disparity.



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

I was on my way to work this morning,and it struck me that while it's a trip I make every day, this road we're all on called life is only a one way, a one time trip.  In fact thats a commonality between Christianity and Athiesm: You get one shot at this life thing and it's over.  Then I had another thought.  It was that those houses I was passing by represented humanity and that Chrstianity encourages, calls, and even demands me to affect humanity in a positive way, and that Atheism does not: If you do, you do;If you don't , you don't.  That to me is huge.  Atheism simply doesn't care.  It's empty.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was on my way to work this morning,and it struck me that while it's a trip I make every day, this road we're all on called life is only a one way, a one time trip.  In fact thats a commonality between Christianity and Athiesm: You get one shot at this life thing and it's over.  Then I had another thought.  It was that those houses I was passing by represented humanity and that Chrstianity encourages, calls, and even demands me to affect humanity in a positive way, and that Atheism does not: If you do, you do;If you don't , you don't.  That to me is huge.  Atheism simply doesn't care.  It's empty.



I respectfully disagree. Maybe some atheists think fellow humans are pretty amazing (top of the food chain smart) and care about them and want to help them in the here and now, in a tangible way, when they need it the most.
Also some atheists want to help others even though there is no reward after death for their goodness - with nobody watching them from the spirit world, and rewarding (or punishing them) for deeds done while they were alive. 

There's no "do this, and you go to or Hades" or "do this, and you go to heaven". Things are done because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2013)

Atheism doesn't care, people do.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2013)

Look at how many poor souls there are that can't wait for this life to be over because they are anticipating Heaven's Chocolate Wonderfall.

"Lord come quick!"

Is that really living in the here and now?


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2013)

Wonder how it works in practise? Making the world a better place...

Secular countries (and secular areas within countries) have..

Less teen pregnancy
Lower divorce rate
Lower rate of violent crime
Lower murder rate
Lower domestic violence rates.
Report higher rates of happiness
Less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian
Are Better educated


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2013)

Unbelievers and dogs help people. What's their motivation? 
I'm a Christian and I know God does demand us to help others but I hope that's not the only reason a Christian helps someone. It has to come from one's own free will and heart.
Nobody has to help others but even animals help each other. It has to be an animalistic instinct for survival. I know plenty of Christians that aren't very helpful to others.

(This also sounds like just another way of saying Atheist have no reason for being good.)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was on my way to work this morning,and it struck me that while it's a trip I make every day, this road we're all on called life is only a one way, a one time trip.  In fact thats a commonality between Christianity and Athiesm: You get one shot at this life thing and it's over.  Then I had another thought.  It was that those houses I was passing by represented humanity and that Chrstianity encourages, calls, and even demands me to affect humanity in a positive way, and that Atheism does not: If you do, you do;If you don't , you don't.  That to me is huge.  Atheism simply doesn't care.  It's empty.



Atheism doesn't do anything. Like your God, it is a concept. People actually DO things, care, help, hurt, love ,hate etc. People just like to praise some non existent being or concept for their own actions and blame some non existent being or concept when others don't agree with them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

My point is there is nothing in Humanism, Naturalism, Scientism, etc. that compels followers to serve others in the way Christianity does.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 7, 2013)

Science can point to nothing to tell us how we should or shouldn't behave. Whatever else atheists use to defend why they want to help others is simply unfounded. Maybe they will one day be enlightened on how the universe really operates.


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2013)

We hear this nonsense all the time.

Secularists cant be moral, don't have meaning in there lives. All because you're defining morality and meaning by an imaginary father figure.

Must really chap your arse to know that millions of secularists are currently having happy, moral, productive, altruistic, fulfilling lives filled with meaning without needing to think about any kind of ethereal overlord. Interacting with both religious and secularists peacefully, no baby eating, not rampaging around raping.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 7, 2013)

Hey, I'm glad there are happy people out there. 
The fact remains that the universe doesn't care that you try to attach meaning or morality upon it. 
Whatever false notions you use to accomplish those tasks are up to you.


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Hey, I'm glad there are happy people out there.
> The fact remains that the universe doesn't care that you try to attach meaning or morality upon it.
> Whatever false notions you use to accomplish those tasks are up to you.



Its a beautiful thing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

Four said:


> We hear this nonsense all the time.



It's an accurate observation.



Four said:


> Secularists cant be moral, don't have meaning in there lives. All because you're defining morality and meaning by an imaginary father figure.



It was never said nor implied that Secularist can't be moral.  My stance on that subject is consistent.  It is anyone can act in morally just manner, irregardless of their beliefs.  What was specifically stated was There is nothing that COMPELS a Secularist to do so in the way Christianity COMPELS Christians to. Now if you want to debate that, fine, but don't misconstrue the argument into something again, neither said nor implied.



Four said:


> Must really chap your arse to know that millions of secularists are currently having happy, moral, productive, altruistic, fulfilling lives filled with meaning without needing to think about any kind of ethereal overlord. Interacting with both religious and secularists peacefully, no baby eating, not rampaging around raping.



No quite the opposite.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My point is there is nothing in Humanism, Naturalism, Scientism, etc. that compels followers to serve others in the way Christianity does.



Way I see it, "Do unto others" and "Don't covet your brothers stuff" was around long before Christianity claimed exclusive rights to teach morality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2013)

Every time you post a subject about Atheism you confirm the fact that you dont know or want to know what Atheism actually is.
So what I got out of your post is that 
1. Christians are compelled by Christianity to act morally. 
2. Anyone regardless of their beleifs can act morally they just arent compelled by Christiany to do it.
And this just struck you this morning?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2013)

Why in these discussions about morals or why people do good that we ask Atheist,  we don't ask Wiccans, Hindus, Ekancars, Jews, or Muslims why they are good.
I don't see a difference between all of those people and Atheist. Jesus said you are either with me or against me.

In closing the one true God must be giving every living thing capable of being good this ability or either he's not giving it to any person or animal.  Can unbelievers do more good than Atheist? Can Christians do more good deeds than unbelievers?
What does doing good matter as far as Salvation? I don't think that's a part of Salvation. Plenty of people doing good works that won't be in Heaven.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Way I see it, "Do unto others" and "Don't covet your brothers stuff" was around long before Christianity claimed exclusive rights to teach morality.



Really, because if you can find those in a written format that predates what Judeo-Christianity have held to be the originals I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Every time you post a subject about Atheism you confirm the fact that you dont know or want to know what Atheism actually is.
> So what I got out of your post is that
> 1. Christians are compelled by Christianity to act morally.
> 2. Anyone regardless of their beleifs can act morally they just arent compelled by Christiany to do it.
> And this just struck you this morning?



The flip side of that is that assertion is that anyone can act immorally also.  Christianity contends justice awaits in the end.  Atheism's denominations of 'isms' don't, hence there is no penalty for immoral actions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2013)

So much for the doctrine of total depravity.  Even unbelievers are made in the image of God. Even unbelievers do many good things, like showing genuine, unselfish love for their families, sometimes even better than most believers. 

We see in the 3 gospels Mathew 19;16-17,luke 18:19,Mark 10:17-18. Jesus said why called thou me good for there is none good but one that is God.
                                                                                                                                                                                 Maybe none of us are good.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The flip side of that is that assertion is that anyone can act immorally also.  Christianity contends justice awaits in the end.  Atheism's denominations of 'isms' don't, hence there is no penalty for immoral actions.



Are we being good because we should or because of the penalty? What is the penalty for Christians doing immoral actions or has that penalty already been paid?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The flip side of that is that assertion is that anyone can act immorally also.  Christianity contends justice awaits in the end.  Atheism's denominations of 'isms' don't, hence there is no penalty for immoral actions.


And so?  Do you not murder children because you are afraid of the hot place?
Its pretty obvious you view Atheism as a type of "religion" therefore it is impossible for you to have intelligent discussion on the subject. At least not with Atheists. But I get the feeling that is ok with you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> And so?  Do you not murder children because you are afraid of the hot place?
> Its pretty obvious you view Atheism as a type of "religion" therefore it is impossible for you to have intelligent discussion on the subject. At least not with Atheists. But I get the feeling that is ok with you?



Atheism is a truth claim.  It has its followers.  There are even some Athiest Churches springing up.  You can say its not a religion in the conventional sense of the word, but a sound case can be made that it has enough of the hallmarks of religion to be considered as such.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Look at how many poor souls there are that can't wait for this life to be over because they are anticipating Heaven's Chocolate Wonderfall.



Ambush, my relatively in-depth study of the Bible has produced no evidence of that claim.  I think you made it up.



ambush80 said:


> "Lord come quick!"
> 
> Is that really living in the here and now?



Is that really what's important?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The flip side of that is that assertion is that anyone can act immorally also.  Christianity contends justice awaits in the end.  Atheism's denominations of 'isms' don't, hence there is no penalty for immoral actions.



There is no real penalty for immoral actions/sins to a christian either. Just point to the cross and you don't have to worry about it. It's pretty much the same thing.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> There is no real penalty for immoral actions/sins to a christian either. Just point to the cross and you don't have to worry about it. It's pretty much the same thing.



If this is how you think Christianity works, I would suggest you read the bible, particularly the new testament. If you're going to deny the Christian faith, at least deny the Christian faith and not some misrepresented pseudo faith.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

You don't have to worry about your sins. They were paid for.. You just accept it. You have no more worry of any kind of eternal punishment than I do.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You don't have to worry about your sins. They were paid for.. You just accept it. You have no more worry of any kind of eternal punishment than I do.



That statement could give the impression that it's ok to sin, because you're covered, and that's simply not implication put forth anywhere in the bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

You know you're a sinner. You can't not be a sinner. Yes, there are more details with regards to it... but you know you are, you can't not be, but it is ok. Which 100% implies that it is ok to sin. I'm not trying to be sneaky or twist words around. It is what it is. If you are forgiven and you are inherently a sinner, then it is ok to sin. It may not be encouraged if that's what you mean. Either way, you don't worry about eternal punishment or penalty as SFD says because of your beliefs. Which is exactly the same as me.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jun 10, 2013)

I think you should take a peak at what your fellow christians post around this place before you judge anybody!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You know you're a sinner. You can't not be a sinner. Yes, there are more details with regards to it... but you know you are, you can't not be, but it is ok. Which 100% implies that it is ok to sin. I'm not trying to be sneaky or twist words around. It is what it is. If you are forgiven and you are inherently a sinner, then it is ok to sin. It may not be encouraged if that's what you mean. Either way, you don't worry about eternal punishment or penalty as SFD says because of your beliefs. Which is exactly the same as me.



Having a relationship with Christ, and you're sins being atoned for doesn't meant sins are ok, it just means sins are atoned for.

Your logic is not sound in your post. Because I am forgiven of my sins in no way makes it ok for me to continue to sin. There is to be a transformed life of not wanting to sin after a relationship with God through Christ is established.

You're correct though that no Christian needs to worry about eternal seperation from God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> I think you should take a peak at what your fellow christians post around this place before you judge anybody!!!



Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

You can't not be a sinner... ever... so it's not encouraged, but it is OK. It must be. Semantics... What matters in regards to the post I was responding to is that you have no worry of eternal penalty for immoral actions. Nor do I.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You can't not be a sinner... ever... so it's not encouraged, but it is OK. It must be.


Sins being forgiven/atoned for and sins being "OK" are two different things. 



> Semantics... What matters in regards to the post I was responding to is that you have no worry of eternal penalty for immoral actions. Nor do I.



Yes, neither of us worry about eternal punishment, for two very different reasons, one of us is correct and the other is not.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 10, 2013)

We could also both be right. It's not unthinkable that neither of us have any penalty, yet there is an afterlife. Maybe as long as we try to be good people, we don't suffer any kind of penalty penalty. Or we both suffer a penalty because I believe in no god and you believe in the wrong one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You know you're a sinner. You can't not be a sinner. Yes, there are more details with regards to it... but you know you are, you can't not be, but it is ok. Which 100% implies that it is ok to sin.



I'm sorry TXB, but that's simply not correct, in fact the Bible teaches the exact opposite.  Paul in Romans Chapter 6 addresses this very issue directly

"1What should we say then? Should we continue in sin so that grace may multiply? 2 Absolutely not!”

And again in 6:15

“What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under Grace?  Absolutely not!"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

So then, why do YOU continue sinning? You should ABSOLUTELY not.. Since you are not obeying Paul's commandments here, does that mean that you are not going to heaven?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So then, why do YOU continue sinning?


Sanctification is a process.



> You should ABSOLUTELY not.. Since you are not obeying Paul's commandments here, does that mean that you are not going to heaven?



No.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

Exactly. So it is OK for you to sin. I realize it's not encouraged, but it is ok.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So then, why do YOU continue sinning? You should ABSOLUTELY not.. Since you are not obeying Paul's commandments here, does that mean that you are not going to heaven?




Because I'm still human and I will continue to mess up until I'm gone.  I don't actively peruse sin like I did before, but I'm certainly not perfect.  The blood of Christ atones for all my past sins as well as my future one.  I don't wantonly sin, because I realize how precious that gift was I was given.  It's out of that thankfulness and gratitude that I try to do my best, but again as long as I'm human I'm gonna mess up and sin from time to time.  That's what many don't realize.  Becoming a Christian doesn't make you perfect, just better than you were before.  Paul is speaking of wantonly sinning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Exactly. So it is OK for you to sin. I realize it's not encouraged, but it is ok.



No it's not ok no more than it is when your children disobey you, but you forgive them if they ask for forgiveness do you not?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The flip side of that is that assertion is that anyone can act immorally also.  Christianity contends justice awaits in the end.  Atheism's denominations of 'isms' don't, hence there is no penalty for immoral actions.



Ok - meaning exactly what I first quoted from your post - It is OK meaning you don't have to worry about being penalized for those sins (immoral actions).


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ok - meaning exactly what I first quoted from your post - It is OK meaning you don't have to worry about being penalized for those sins (immoral actions).



Who's says God doesn't punish His children for sins?

Jesus paid the ultimate penalty for sins, that doesn't take away the fact that there are still consequences for those sins, hence Paul's warning.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

When I was younger and a young believer, I felt that when I sinned I got punished for those sins by say, not getting a pair of shoes I wanted or my girlfriend getting mad at me - something not at all related to the sin. As a more mature believer, I understood that wasn't exactly the case. 

You're saying that there is a karma type of a thought in christianity? Like when you covet your neighbor's wife then you may be punished by not getting the promotion at work?


----------



## pnome (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You get one shot at this life thing and it's over.



That's not what Christians believe at all.  Christians believe in an eternal life.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're saying that there is a karma type of a thought in christianity?



It's more like a child/Father relationship.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No it's not ok no more than it is when your children disobey you, but you forgive them if they ask for forgiveness do you not?



So now you're saying his ways ARE our ways?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's more like a child/Father relationship.



So I'm forgiven after receiving punishment? Is that punishment guaranteed, or might some sins just be directly forgiven before I get punished?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So now you're saying his ways ARE our ways?



More like our ways are sometimes like His ways.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So I'm forgiven after receiving punishment?


If your sins have been forgiven through Christ, you're forgiven before, during, and after the sin. You don't have to receive a punishment to be forgiven.



> Is that punishment guaranteed, or might some sins just be directly forgiven before I get punished?



I would say there is probably a good chance that most sins have some type of consequence attached.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who's says God doesn't punish His children for sins?
> 
> Jesus paid the ultimate penalty for sins, that doesn't take away the fact that there are still consequences for those sins, hence Paul's warning.



I agree


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> When I was younger and a young believer, I felt that when I sinned I got punished for those sins by say, not getting a pair of shoes I wanted or my girlfriend getting mad at me - something not at all related to the sin. As a more mature believer, I understood that wasn't exactly the case.
> 
> You're saying that there is a karma type of a thought in christianity? Like when you covet your neighbor's wife then you may be punished by not getting the promotion at work?



No.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If your sins have been forgiven through Christ, you're forgiven before, during, and after the sin. You don't have to receive a punishment to be forgiven.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say there is probably a good chance that most sins have some type of consequence attached.



I would echo that.  There is still cause and effect of sin  i.e. adultery costing you your marriage and family and all that entails.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

Cause and effect I can see... because by definition I believe, C&E don't include any divine intervention... adultery costing you your marriage. I'm talking about thinking bad things about a kid in my 4th grade class inside of my head, like calling him bad words, or having impure thoughts about the girl sitting beside me in 8th grade - all inside of my head, and then my parents not getting me the new pair of Jordans I asked for.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Cause and effect I can see... because by definition I believe, C&E don't include any divine intervention... adultery costing you your marriage. I'm talking about thinking bad things about a kid in my 4th grade class inside of my head, like calling him bad words, or having impure thoughts about the girl sitting beside me in 8th grade - all inside of my head, and then my parents not getting me the new pair of Jordans I asked for.



Those two things didn't have anything to do with you not getting shoes.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 11, 2013)

I agree at this point in my life 

So you're saying that punishment for sins are necessarily specific to the sin itself?


----------



## JFS (Jun 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I would say there is probably a good chance that most sins have some type of consequence attached.



Or maybe a good chance that things that have bad consequences are labeled as sins.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree at this point in my life
> 
> So you're saying that punishment for sins are necessarily specific to the sin itself?



No.  See post 49


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 12, 2013)

That doesn't answer my question.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That doesn't answer my question.



You lost me then.  I don't understand your question.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 12, 2013)

String seems to be saying fairly positively, that my parents not getting me the new pair of shoes I wanted had absolutely nothing to do with the un-related sins that I mentioned. I am asking if that means that consequences/punishment from god for sins are specific to the sin. As in, I coveted my neighbors wife, so my wife left me. The punishment is specific to the sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> String seems to be saying fairly positively, that my parents not getting me the new pair of shoes I wanted had absolutely nothing to do with the un-related sins that I mentioned. I am asking if that means that consequences/punishment from god for sins are specific to the sin. As in, I coveted my neighbors wife, so my wife left me. The punishment is specific to the sin.



Possibly.... probably

I'm not currently aware of any specific explanation of that question in the bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Possibly.... probably
> 
> I'm not currently aware of any specific explanation of that question in the bible.



If that is the case, then how did you answer this question for me with what seemed to me like such certainty?



stringmusic said:


> Those two things didn't have anything to do with you not getting shoes.



Did god tell you?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If that is the case, then how did you answer this question for me with what seemed to me like such certainty?



Reasoning through what I believe about God and what knoweledge I have on the bible.

I believe God teaches lessons in the catagory of the particular sin, otherwise, we wouldn't learn the lesson of why it is unwise to commit that sin again.


It's unlogical to think that you(plural) didn't get a raise at work because you're cheating on your spouse, however, it is logical that your wife left you and now you're miserable and lonely.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

I see that logic. I also see that it's logical that those kind of consequences happen without any divine intervention, without any god trying to teach a lesson.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I see that logic. I also see that it's logical that those kind of consequences happen without any divine intervention, without any god trying to teach a lesson.



Are lessons learned through a natural process? How can nature, without a mind, teach?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I see that logic. I also see that it's logical that those kind of consequences happen without any divine intervention, without any god trying to teach a lesson.



TXB it's a really good point you raise.  My understanding on this parallels that of Strings.  It's one of those things the Bible doesn't give a concise answer that we could/can apply in any type of consistent manner.  Indeed for us to be able to understand how, why and when God acts,  we in ourselves would have to be in the very least omniscient in our understanding.  For only a being able to know literally everything would we be able to know who is truly just and who is unjust today as well as yesterday.   If you expand that into omnipresence then we could know that for tomorrow also.  But it is only through omnipotence would we be able to act accordingly to the knowledge that omniscience and omnipresence afforded.  The Bible describes God as having all three of those characteristics.  I find that not only logical, but in fact necessary that he would be so.  That being said, it certainly doesn't mean I understand it beyond a superficial level.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are lessons learned through a natural process? How can nature, without a mind, teach?



Trial and error teaches. Our own mind can learn without having a conscious teacher.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TXB it's a really good point you raise.  My understanding on this parallels that of Strings.  It's one of those things the Bible doesn't give a concise answer that we could/can apply in any type of consistent manner.  Indeed for us to be able to understand how, why and when God acts,  we in ourselves would have to be in the very least omniscient in our understanding.  For only a being able to know literally everything would we be able to know who is truly just and who is unjust today as well as yesterday.   If you expand that into omnipresence then we could know that for tomorrow also.  But it is only through omnipotence would we be able to act accordingly to the knowledge that omniscience and omnipresence afforded.  The Bible describes God as having all three of those characteristics.  I find that not only logical, but in fact necessary that he would be so.  That being said, it certainly doesn't mean I understand it beyond a superficial level.




So you're baseically saying that his ways are not our ways?




stringmusic said:


> More like our ways are sometimes like His ways.




So when they make sense, he acts like a human would. When they don't make sense and you can't explain it, his ways are no longer our ways. I would be more content with I JUST DON'T FLIPPIN know! It seems much more honest.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're baseically saying that his ways are not our ways?


Seems to me SFD just gave a solid logical argument that for us to be able to explain everything about God we would have to be God.

Yes, His ways are not always the same as ours, but you seemed to ignore the logic in the post and simplified the argument into a often quoted statement that tries to make believers out to be unintelligent.




> So when they make sense, he acts like a human would.


When they make sense, we are acting like God would.



> When they don't make sense and you can't explain it, his ways are no longer our ways. I would be more content with I JUST DON'T FLIPPIN know! It seems much more honest.



You can be content with that if you'd like, I for one am not, especially when there's a logical and reasonable explaination.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

If any of his ways are not our ways... and they're explained in a way that means I am completely unable to understand them... I will conclude that if there is a god and this is the case then I am unable to understand him... and I see no point in attempting in because it will always end the same way, with me being unable to understand him.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If any of his ways are not our ways... and they're explained in a way that means I am completely unable to understand them... I will conclude that if there is a god and this is the case then I am unable to understand him... and I see no point in attempting in because it will always end the same way, with me being unable to understand him.



So if you cannot *completely* understand Him, your conclusion is that you cannot understand Him in any capacity?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm not sure where it got to the point that we're talking about understanding HIM.. I may have made that mistake myself... Neither of us are attempting understanding HIM here. That is a pretty clear fact. We are attempting to understand what people meant when they wrote things a lot time ago.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 13, 2013)

And to answer your question, if I base it only on what I understand, then I hope that it's not true. You can't justify the world of a loving god without saying his ways aren't *always-- whatever* our ways. So I'm stuck with an understanding of something that I severely dislike with the only way to rectify it being to understand that his ways aren't our ways.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 14, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> And to answer your question, if I base it only on what I understand, then I hope that it's not true. You can't justify the world of a loving god without saying his ways aren't *always-- whatever* our ways. So I'm stuck with an understanding of something that I severely dislike with the only way to rectify it being to understand that his ways aren't our ways.



Everything you need to understand is found in the bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 14, 2013)

Oh... I knew I was missing something.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

TXB 68



> So you're baseically saying that his ways are not our ways?



It would be more accurate to say our ways are to his ways as an infant's is to a parent's.   An infant has all the necessary material that is needed to become an adult, however it needs to be molded, developed and matured.  


TXB 70



> If any of his ways are not our ways... and they're explained in a way that means I am completely unable to understand them... I will conclude that if there is a god and this is the case then I am unable to understand him... and I see no point in attempting in because it will always end the same way, with me being unable to understand him.



Undoubtedly you don't have teenagers, because this statement very well describes my teenage son's outlook with regards to me much of the time.  He doesn't understand why I demand of him what I do and its obvious by his actions that he sees no point in trying.  He doesn't grasp the concept that if he would just trust and obey me he would avoid a lot of problems as he grows up, and that I am doing it out of my love for him.  This is the best analogy I can give you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 14, 2013)

That's not a bad analogy.. but it doesn't help.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 14, 2013)

What is it lacking?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TXB 68
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would never let a child  play with a lawnmower and then say "See?  I told you so.  For eternity."  But my ways are not his ways.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I would never let a child  play with a lawnmower and then say "See?  I told you so.  For eternity."  But my ways are not his ways.



My guess is you are old enough to be accountable for your actions.  Are you not?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My guess is you are old enough to be accountable for your actions.  Are you not?



I would try to stop a full grown man, a stranger, even, from sticking his hand in a lawnmower.  How much more so someone that I claimed to love?  

Resolve that then we can discuss the eternity part.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I would try to stop a full grown man, a stranger, even, from sticking his hand in a lawnmower.  How much more so someone that I claimed to love?



Great post! 

It's great that God has given us the ability to spend eternity with Him, with or without hands!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I would try to stop a full grown man, a stranger, even, from sticking his hand in a lawnmower.  How much more so someone that I claimed to love?
> 
> Resolve that then we can discuss the eternity part.



Let me see if I understand your argument/Analogy correctly.  It seems to be implying that one should be able to rebel against Gods laws( sticking hand in lawn mower) and then hold God accountable when he doesn't step in save you from destroying yourself.  Furthermore you find the punishment too severe for the crime being that it's eternal.  Is this a correct understanding of what you are trying to convey?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 17, 2013)

As I survey what I have seen in my lifetime, I have seen no more from the church than the secular world. Lots of unreligious groups do good things, without exploiting it. I rarely see anything from the Christian camp that is not exploited for their own honor. I wonder if they would do anything if they could not shout it from the roof tops. Another grip of mine. The past church I went to would do nothing for anyone. They gave 10 % to missions. Here is what an old aquaintance who became a missionary gets. They get $1400 per month for each child. They now have six babies. The entire college of all children is paid for any where they wish to go. Add that up. Est $500,000 for this family. They can retire with full benefits around 50. And they both draw a salary while having  jobs where they are located. Another friend has a brother who is a missionary along with his family. I asked if they would ever come home. They said heck no because where they live, they are filty rich and all the locals work for them as servants whether it be cleaning house, nanny, grounds keeper, etc. Don't be fooled, every missionary is not in some 3rd world country with no power and running water. Maybe some. But your missions money is mostly spent in ways you had no idea


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The past church I went to would do nothing for anyone. They gave 10 % to missions.


My brain just locked up.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 18, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> My brain just locked up.


They would give $1500 to a local singer who had to drive 10 minutes to get there, who might sing 3 to 4 songs but never did anything local. I went there 40 years


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 18, 2013)

quote)The past church I went to would do nothing for anyone. They gave 10 % to missions.(quote

Oxymoron?  gives nothing vs 10%

I researched missionary work and it could be a pretty good business venture. Lots of benefits as you stated, retirement plan, insurance, housing, etc.
My wife said no way stating, infections, lack of health care, and civil war.
On a side note me and a friend were looking at what percentage of charity funds went to charities and it was pretty low.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 18, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> They would give $1500 to a local singer who had to drive 10 minutes to get there, who might sing 3 to 4 songs but never did anything local. I went there 40 years


At least you are consistent. I have to ask though. You were a member of a local assembly, that did nothing for anyone, for 40 years? For 40 years, you did nothing for anyone?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 18, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> As I survey what I have seen in my lifetime, I have seen no more from the church than the secular world.



I was kinda shocked by this statement, because it contradicts what we know about charitable giving in that the religious are more likely to give than the secular are. [http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577]. Then you stated you spent 40 years in a dead church.  I guess that would explain it.  In my church everything goes to missions after overhead is paid, everything.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was kinda shocked by this statement, because it contradicts what we know about charitable giving in that the religious are more likely to give than the secular are. [http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577]. Then you stated you spent 40 years in a dead church.  I guess that would explain it.  In my church everything goes to missions after overhead is paid, everything.


No local good done at all in the church where I came from. They insisted that it should be given to the IMB, International Missions board. I served app 12 of the last years as a deacon trying to change that but failed to do so. I would get so frustrated with the things they would waste money on.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 18, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> At least you are consistent. I have to ask though. You were a member of a local assembly, that did nothing for anyone, for 40 years? For 40 years, you did nothing for anyone?


Lots of things, but I don't shout it from the roof tops. I know better than to begin to name them.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me see if I understand your argument/Analogy correctly.  It seems to be implying that one should be able to rebel against Gods laws( sticking hand in lawn mower) and then hold God accountable when he doesn't step in save you from destroying yourself.  Furthermore you find the punishment too severe for the crime being that it's eternal.  Is this a correct understanding of what you are trying to convey?



I suppose it is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 19, 2013)

Your stance baffles me, but I applaud your honesty.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 19, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose it is.



If it's father/child, yes. My daughter can rebel against me. I'm not going to send her to he11. I'm DEFINITELY not going to create a he11 just so that I have a place to send her if she rebels.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If it's father/child, yes. My daughter can rebel against me. I'm not going to send her to he11. I'm DEFINITELY not going to create a he11 just so that I have a place to send her if she rebels.



What about if she chooses to not have a relationship with you, and in not having that relationship with you, her life is miserable?

This C.S. Lewis quote(which has been posted in here many times) explains it great....



			
				C.S. Lewis said:
			
		

> “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2013)

Originally Posted by TripleXBullies View Post
If it's father/child, yes. My daughter can rebel against me. I'm not going to send her to he11. I'm DEFINITELY not going to create a he11 just so that I have a place to send her if she rebels.
What about if she chooses to not have a relationship with you, and in not having that relationship with you, her life is miserable?

This C.S. Lewis quote(which has been posted in here many times) explains it great....

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done."


I'm not gonna sit on my hands and watch a child of mine burn in he11 for eternity if I can help it.  I'd tie them to a post first.  Free will be danged.  Maybe I'd let them burn for a thousand years but they had better have done something really bad.  Saying:  "I don't love you and I won't worship you" wouldn't be bad enough by my standards.  But I guess my ways are not 'his' ways.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What about if she chooses to not have a relationship with you, and in not having that relationship with you, her life is miserable?




I would do whatever I could to try to change it.. but I wouldn't create a place of torture to send her because of it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 19, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Originally Posted by TripleXBullies View Post
> If it's father/child, yes. My daughter can rebel against me. I'm not going to send her to he11. I'm DEFINITELY not going to create a he11 just so that I have a place to send her if she rebels.
> What about if she chooses to not have a relationship with you, and in not having that relationship with you, her life is miserable?
> 
> ...


So, when you say to God "I don't love You and I don't worship You" and He says to you, ok Ambush, you never have to worry about me again, you're officially out of my presence forever, just like you want.

Why would you be upset by that? You're getting exactly what you want. You seem to be upset by the fact that not being in the presence of the Lord means torment, that's not God's problem, it's just the way it is.


TripleXBullies said:


> I would do whatever I could to try to change it.. but I wouldn't create a place of torture to send her because of it.



See response above...


----------



## JFS (Jun 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> and He says to you



Of course that's the absurdity of the whole discussion.  God never shows up and says anything.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, when you say to God "I don't love You and I don't worship You" and He says to you, ok Ambush, you never have to worry about me again, you're officially out of my presence forever, just like you want.
> 
> Why would you be upset by that? You're getting exactly what you want. You seem to be upset by the fact that not being in the presence of the Lord means torment, that's not God's problem, it's just the way it is.
> 
> ...



Because of the fire in eyeballs for eternity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 20, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because of the fire in eyeballs for eternity.



But you never burn up so it's more like a terrible niacin flush.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, when you say to God "I don't love You and I don't worship You" and He says to you, ok Ambush, you never have to worry about me again, you're officially out of my presence forever, just like you want.
> 
> Why would you be upset by that? You're getting exactly what you want. You seem to be upset by the fact that not being in the presence of the Lord means torment, that's not God's problem, it's just the way it is.
> 
> ...



Just the way it is? That's just the way it is because he made it that way. If you're taking the translation of he11 as being not being in the presence of god, I can handle that. I handle it every second of my life. But when it's a lake of fire created with me in mind, it's 100% not the way any loving father would want things.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2013)

JFS said:


> Of course that's the absurdity of the whole discussion.  God never shows up and says anything.


Thanks for your opinion.


ambush80 said:


> Because of the fire in eyeballs for eternity.


Still not a reason to be upset with God. Because not being in His presence is going to be terrible is not a reason to fault Him, especially when there is ample opportunity for you to be in His presence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just the way it is? That's just the way it is because he made it that way. If you're taking the translation of he11 as being not being in the presence of god, I can handle that. I handle it every second of my life. But when it's a lake of fire created with me in mind, it's 100% not the way any loving father would want things.



No you don't, you just don't have a relationship with Him. The earth is not devoid of His presence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

If you will speak as if it's truth, so will I. 

Yes It Is.  I can mis-cApitalize too.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If you will speak as if it's truth, so will I.


When your argument breaks down, the "yea well, it's not true anyway!" argument is always a good one.

You're making accusations against Christianity, I'm refuting those accusations, simple as that, take it for what it is. 




> Yes It Is.  I can mis-cApitalize too.


If we're going to continue this conversation, there's got to be more respect than this nonsense, otherwise we can end it right here...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

Yours isn't an accident. I'm not disrespecting carelessness. I'm talking about your knowledge of pronouns.


My , "yea well, it's not true anyway," argument was in response to your, "yea well, it's true anyway!" argument.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yours isn't an accident. I'm not disrespecting carelessness. I'm talking about your knowledge of pronouns.


Get over it is all I know to tell you. When I reference God in a sentence in any way, it's going to be capitalized.




> My , "yea well, it's not true anyway," argument was in response to your, "yea well, it's true anyway!" argument.


So what are you saying, that you do have a relationship with God?

You're making these accusations about Christiantiy, I'm refuting them based on Christian doctrine. Where have I made a truth claim outside of the Christian doctrine in which you are making accusations about?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm not saying you are making truth claims outside of any doctrine. I'm not saying I don't have a relationship with a god. I'm saying there isn't one there. I know enough about your doctrine to know that whether or not I think I have a relationship doesn't mean he's not walking with me or carrying me the whole time. 

And I don't know what else to tell you other than pronouns aren't capitalized.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If it's father/child, yes. My daughter can rebel against me. I'm not going to send her to he11.



Good point, but  it's not a father child relationship with God if we are not saved.  It's an adversarial relationship until we put down our swords.  As such, one would not reasonably expect to be granted peace nor mercy until it is sought for by the opposition.

If we are saved then we are adopted by God as a child of God.  in that case your statement above is not only absolutely correct, but also serves as a very logical argument for the doctrine of once saved, always saved.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just the way it is? That's just the way it is because he made it that way.



TXB I think I understand what your saying regarding "because that's the way he made me." and you are correct in that we are inherently not only faulty by birth but also predisposed to more faults through the life experience.  That's a given.  But he also gave us an "out", "a bye", "a free get out of jail card" if you will.  That and the power of free will or CHOICE renders us all powerful in controlling our destiny.  

He could have created us without free will, but we would have not been free.  In fact without the ability to choose  we would be essentially robots.  From that perspective how could you ever count on another's devotion and love, if they never had a choice in the matter.  

I hopes this helps and doesn't muddy the waters further.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

He supposedly still made us whether we accept it or not. He is our father whether we accept it or not. I am not my daughter's father only if she accepts that I am. 

I was once saved. Undoubtedly as saved as you think you are. So I'm good now.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TXB I think I understand what your saying regarding "because that's the way he made me." and you are correct in that we are inherently not only faulty by birth but also predisposed to more faults through the life experience.  That's a given.  But he also gave us an "out", "a bye", "a free get out of jail card" if you will.  That and the power of free will or CHOICE renders us all powerful in controlling our destiny.
> 
> He could have created us without free will, but we would have not been free.  In fact without the ability to choose  we would be essentially robots.  From that perspective how could you ever count on another's devotion and love, if they never had a choice in the matter.
> 
> I hopes this helps and doesn't muddy the waters further.



I mean it is that way meaning where I go if I don't choose to love hIm. 

I didn't have a daughter so that she can fulfill my need for unconditional love and devotion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He supposedly still made us whether we accept it or not. He is our father whether we accept it or not. I am not my daughter's father only if she accepts that I am.
> 
> I was once saved. Undoubtedly as saved as you think you are. So I'm good now.



I can't say.  It's not my decision.  I have no way of knowing


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I mean it is that way meaning where I go if I don't choose to love hIm.



As you correctly stated, it is YOUR CHOICE.  



TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't have a daughter so that she can fulfill my need for unconditional love and devotion.



I agree. We have children in order to have someone we can show our love to.  If they reject that love the pain is so much more intense and personal.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 20, 2013)

Yes, I'm sure it is intense and personal... but not so intense and personal that I would create a he11 to send them to eternally separate them from me.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, I'm sure it is intense and personal... but not so intense and personal that I would create a he11 to send them to eternally separate them from me.



Are you just not listening?

What would you do then?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TXB I think I understand what your saying regarding "because that's the way he made me." and you are correct in that we are inherently not only faulty by birth but also predisposed to more faults through the life experience.  That's a given.  But he also gave us an "out", "a bye", "a free get out of jail card" if you will.  That and the power of free will or CHOICE renders us all powerful in controlling our destiny.
> 
> He could have created us without free will, but we would have not been free.  In fact without the ability to choose  we would be essentially robots.  From that perspective how could you ever count on another's devotion and love, if they never had a choice in the matter.
> 
> I hopes this helps and doesn't muddy the waters further.



As a father I can only love my child.  I can't make them love me back. They can renounce or relationship and  spit in my face and I still would tie her to a post to keep her from sticking her hand in a lawnmower, but I'm silly like that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you just not listening?
> 
> What would you do then?



Let her do what she wanted to to do. The implications of letting her do what she wants to do are completely different than what the bible says about what happens when god lets us do what we want to do though. hE might end up doing that, letting us do what we want to do, but my daughter's life without me might not be as fulfilling for either of us, it's not full of torment and pain.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Let her do what she wanted to to do. The implications of letting her do what she wants to do are completely different than what the bible says about what happens when god lets us do what we want to do though. hE might end up doing that, letting us do what we want to do, but my daughter's life without me might not be as fulfilling for either of us, it's not full of torment and pain.



Well, it is with God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> As a father I can only love my child.  I can't make them love me back. They can renounce or relationship and  spit in my face and I still would tie her to a post to keep her from sticking her hand in a lawnmower, but I'm silly like that.



You would make her a robot, and in the process end the ability to love her or have a true relationship with her.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well, it is with God.



Which is the way he made it.. Completely not full of love, compassion, mercy and grace. 

You can't call it mercy not giving someone what they deserve when you are completely the reason why they deserve it in the first place. When you devised the entire framework that put them in the situation. You can't call it grace to give someone what they don't deserve when the only reason why they don't deserve it is because you say so. 

Would you consider me a hero to run in to a burning building a save a pregnant woman from burning alive... If I started the fire after tying her up inside the house?

I thought that would be dramatic... Let's make it personal.. Would YOU lay down your life and worship me as your savior if I tied YOU up in a house, lit it on fire and then ran in to save you from it. When the reason why I did it was because you didn't call me your savior or worship me in the first place.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, I'm sure it is intense and personal... but not so intense and personal that I would create a he11 to send them to eternally separate them from me.



He doesn't send us to He11.  Those that go chose it.  Given a freedom of choice inherently comes with responsibility.  If you want the freedom, you are also responsible for the results of your choices.  The two concepts are inseparable.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

See 122.. It's only that way because he made it that way. So he sends us there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> As a father I can only love my child.  I can't make them love me back. They can renounce or relationship and  spit in my face and I still would tie her to a post to keep her from sticking her hand in a lawnmower, but I'm silly like that.



He's not your Father if you don't claim that relationship, only your creator.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

I, as a father, have a responsibility to my daughter. I'm not just a sperm donor. Here in the US, responsibility is enforced by way of child support whether the father claims any relationship or not. RESPONSIBILITY for your creation. I'm sorry, I'm not a dead beat dad like that, nor do I have respect for any father that can possibly assume the role of just a creator based on any other circumstances.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Which is the way he made it.. Completely not full of love, compassion, mercy and grace.
> 
> You can't call it mercy not giving someone what they deserve when you are completely the reason why they deserve it in the first place. When you devised the entire framework that put them in the situation. You can't call it grace to give someone what they don't deserve when the only reason why they don't deserve it is because you say so.
> 
> ...



TBX, how do you come to the conclusion the God is the author of evil.  Evil is a direct result of free will.  If there is no freedom to chose then there is no evil, but You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You suggest that God should have created a utopia where there would be nothing but love, grace, compassion and mercy.  He did, but our freedom of choice destroyed it.  We are the authors of evil, you, me, all of us, but because he does love us he provided us a way out the same way we got in.....choice.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Which is the way he made it.. Completely not full of love, compassion, mercy and grace.
> 
> You can't call it mercy not giving someone what they deserve when you are completely the reason why they deserve it in the first place. When you devised the entire framework that put them in the situation. You can't call it grace to give someone what they don't deserve when the only reason why they don't deserve it is because you say so.
> 
> ...



How would you have set things up?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your straw man.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

So YOU have the choice to worship Me as your savior now if you'd like. You have created evil for not doing it already. Due to the transgression of not worshiping Me already I'm going to tie you up in your home and light your house on fire. If you call to Me and bow to mE as your savior, I will save you from the fire that I created for you. 

....Choice.... 

Why in the world would you consider me a savoir if I saved you from a torment that I created for you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How would you have set things up?
> 
> I'm not going to respond to the rest of your straw man.



In some way that corresponded to the book that I wrote on how to love if I had actually written the book on it. 

I don't believe there is or was anything there to consciously think out how to create the universe. It doesn't need that.... I don't need that to sleep at night. I don't need to set things up the "right" way. I don't have any story of my own of the real way it was done.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So YOU have the choice to worship Me as your savior now if you'd like. You have created evil for not doing it already. Due to the transgression of not worshiping Me already I'm going to tie you up in your home and light your house on fire. If you call to Me and bow to mE as your savior, I will save you from the fire that I created for you.
> 
> ....Choice....
> 
> Why in the world would you consider me a savoir if I saved you from a torment that I created for you.



God hasn't tied anyone up or put you in any situation. Humans put themselves in the situation we are in, not the creation itself.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> In some way that corresponded to the book that I wrote on how to love if I had actually written the book on it.
> 
> I don't believe there is or was anything there to consciously think out how to create the universe. It doesn't need that.... I don't need that to sleep at night. I don't need to set things up the "right" way. I don't have any story of my own of the real way it was done.


This is a problem for many atheists/agnostics, they're better at smelling "rotten eggs" than laying good ones.

You are condemning the way God did things, I'm asking you how you would have done it differently. 

Let's pretend you're God for a second. You've decided to create earth and create humans to put on the earth, how do you go about it? You must include love,mercy,compassion and grace of course, seeing as you claim God didn't do that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> God hasn't tied anyone up or put you in any situation. Humans put themselves in the situation we are in, not the creation itself.



The entire framework was created. When you create something, or EVERYTHING in this case, you give it access to whatever you want. If I'm still playing by your rules even further, let's say it IS 100% our choice... the consequences of that choice are determined not by us. I choose not to be with goD... So that sends me to a lake of fire - whatever description you want. That lake of fire exists why? Who created the lake of fire? If you're the creator of everything, then you created everything...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is a problem for many atheists/agnostics, they're better at smelling "rotten eggs" than laying good ones.
> 
> You are condemning the way God did things, I'm asking you how you would have done it differently.
> 
> Let's pretend you're God for a second. You've decided to create earth and create humans to put on the earth, how do you go about it? You must include love,mercy,compassion and grace of course, seeing as you claim God didn't do that.



I can smell a "rotten egg" and say that no egg is necessary in the first place. 

Just as what I think doesn't matter to you because it doesn't change that hE did it... It doesn't matter to me either because it's not going to change the fact that no conscious entity thought up the frameworks itself. So to me, it's pointless for me to sit down and map it out myself. Especially because even if I did map a better way, even if you agreed with me, it would change nothing for either of us.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can smell a "rotten egg" and say that no egg is necessary in the first place.


You've missed the point. 



> Just as what I think doesn't matter to you because it doesn't change that hE did it... It doesn't matter to me either because it's not going to change the fact that no conscious entity thought up the frameworks itself. So to me, it's pointless for me to sit down and map it out myself. Especially because even if I did map a better way, even if you agreed with me, it would change nothing for either of us.



Well you certianly do a good job of telling us why God didn't do it correctly, I thought you would at least have a decent argument of your own, hence, you can smell the so called "rotten egg" but you find trouble in producing a "good" one.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

I am not telling you how "God" did it wrong. I'm telling you how your story stinks.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I am not telling you how "God" did it wrong.


Interesting, who were you talking about in this post?


TripleXBullies said:


> Which is the way he made it.. Completely not full of love, compassion, mercy and grace.
> 
> You can't call it mercy not giving someone what they deserve when you are completely the reason why they deserve it in the first place. When you devised the entire framework that put them in the situation. You can't call it grace to give someone what they don't deserve when the only reason why they don't deserve it is because you say so.
> 
> ...







> I'm telling you how your story stinks.


My story is how God did it....... and you're telling me how He did it wrong, but you don't know how it's done right, which logically tells me that if you don't know how it's done right, you don't know if God did it wrong.


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Thanks for your opinion.



No, that's a fact.  I would love it if you could show otherwise.  Can you?  Name the time and place and I'll be there.  But we all know god "speaking" is all in someone's head or gut, indistiguishable from schizophrenia or indigestion.  

If I set down rules for my kids about lawnmowers, I would tell them directly, not punish them for not following something a distant relative claimed they heard disembodied voices tell them.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

Your STORY is of how he did it.. That STORY stinks. We are on different levels here. I'm not saying he did it wrong because there's no he and no did. Since I don't think there's anything in that situation who built any framework that has anything to do with that. The premise in the first place stinks. I don't have to abide by any rules of creation to come up with my own story that has a good fragrance when there's nothing there.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's pretend you're God for a second. You've decided to create earth and create humans to put on the earth, how do you go about it? You must include love,mercy,compassion and grace of course, seeing as you claim God didn't do that.



I don't think there is a god at all.. Definitely not any god that has the values or behavior that you think he does based on the bible. Why must I include love, mercy, compassion or grace? Just because I claim your story doesn't include that, doesn't mean that I, as a god, would have to use that. Plus you're starting it off at the wrong place any way. You're starting this off at the point that I've already decided to create something. There's a huge WHY that is answered in your bible that was a choice of this loving entity. 

I don't have to include love, mercy, compassion or grace, if I don't inspire humans to write a book saying that I embody those things, spell out how to exhibit those things yet don't exhibit them myself.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> TBX, how do you come to the conclusion the God is the author of evil.  Evil is a direct result of free will.  If there is no freedom to chose then there is no evil, but You can't have your cake and eat it too.


I have yet to find a "free will" argument that does not choke on the problem of good and evil. God has a good purpose for evil.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> No, that's a fact.  I would love it if you could show otherwise.  Can you?  Name the time and place and I'll be there.


No, it's not a fact. I would love for you to show otherwise. Can you? You don't know if God talks to people that have a relationship with Him, just because you choose not to believe He is real doesn't mean that He isn't.



> But we all know god "speaking" is all in someone's head or gut, indistiguishable from schizophrenia or indigestion.


Thanks for your opinion.  



> If I set down rules for my kids about lawnmowers, I would tell them directly, not punish them for not following something a distant relative claimed they heard disembodied voices tell them.



Straw man. But just for kicks 



			
				God said:
			
		

> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.



You've been told directly.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Your STORY is of how he did it.. That STORY stinks. We are on different levels here. I'm not saying he did it wrong because there's no he and no did. Since I don't think there's anything in that situation who built any framework that has anything to do with that. The premise in the first place stinks. I don't have to abide by any rules of creation to come up with my own story that has a good fragrance when there's nothing there.


Well then, you sure did fool me with your last 15 posts in this thread telling SFD and myself how "God didn't do this with love" and how you "wouldn't have done things this way or that way".


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think there is a god at all.. Definitely not any god that has the values or behavior that you think he does based on the bible. Why must I include love, mercy, compassion or grace? Just because I claim your story doesn't include that, doesn't mean that I, as a god, would have to use that.


You seemed to indicate that God was lacking in these areas, meaning they were good attributes that in your opinion God should have.



> Plus you're starting it off at the wrong place any way. You're starting this off at the point that I've already decided to create something. There's a huge WHY that is answered in your bible that was a choice of this loving entity.
> 
> I don't have to include love, mercy, compassion or grace, if I don't inspire humans to write a book saying that I embody those things, spell out how to exhibit those things yet don't exhibit them myself.



Are you going to attempt to answer the question?


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You don't know if God talks to people that have a relationship with Him



Not in a formal sense but we all know it in practice.  I do believe some people hear what they think is god tell them to kill their kids or deny medical care or whatever.  But we really don't believe them, we send them to a hospital or jail.  It's a farce we humor when harmless but face up to when there are consequences.





> Thanks for your opinion.



Again, will meet you anywhere you want if you can show that to be wrong.  




> You've been told directly.



Nope, that's the crazy distant relatives talking and no more valuable than Aztec hieroglyphics. Why can't god bother to tell us directly if there are such dire consequences?  Frankly if there is a god it ought to be ticked off that the people it gave good sense to fail to so miserably to use it and believe such outlandish fairy tales.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

Here's something else that baffles me about Athiest.  It seems to me most Athiest are very pragmatic in their views.  That being the case, Why not accept Christ as your savior?  If Christianiy is true then you win, and if it's just a fairy tale then you have lost nothing in the end.  But here's the kicker, if You don't accept Christ as your savior and Christianiy is true, then not only are you going to wind up in he11, but most likely so is your family because your kids are going to follow in your footsteps.  So if you are wrong, you are going to be directly responsible as a parent for your kids winding up in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.  That is not a risk I would be willing to take with my kids, even if I had BIG doubts about Christianity.  I would do it based on pragmatism alone for their sake.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

That's like telling me if I believe in Santa then I can at least have the possibility that he'll climb down my chimney and leave me gifts... or I just act like a fool for my lifetime... Yet I have to devote my life to all of the junk in this case. 

SFD.. you are taking that very risk. By claiming the exclusivity of christianity, you completely deny all other views and risk each and every one of them being true. But you "know" you're not risking anything at all, because you believe those other faiths are untrue. I "know" I'm not risking anything with myself or my daughter because I believe your faith to be untrue, as well as the others that we both agree are untrue and find no need to cover our behinds with.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well then, you sure did fool me with your last 15 posts in this thread telling SFD and myself how "God didn't do this with love" and how you "wouldn't have done things this way or that way".



You're right. I caught myself going down that road and speaking like that to play along. That is why I made sure to make the distinction. I have to be on the same page, pretending that there's a real man in the sky called God, in order to have any kind of a conversation that we can be on the same page about.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's pretend you're God for a second. You've decided to create earth and create humans to put on the earth, how do you go about it? You must include love,mercy,compassion and grace of course, seeing as you claim God didn't do that.



This is the one you still want me to answer? Like I said.....

If I must include love, mercy, compassion and grace, then I am still mapping out a god that fits the framework of yours. That framework in the very beginning isn't necessary. 

Any god could be loving, compassionate, merciful and abounding with grace and have the story less smelly. When you claim to be the epitome of these things, explain what these things look like in a collection of divinely inspired books (1 Corinthians for example), then being described exhibiting behaviors in direct violation to those descriptions in the same divinely inspired book, things become smelly.

So here's one - *Create humans. Place on earth.*

I'm not saying I will worship the fpMLm (Flying pizza Meat Loaf monster - capitalized where I please - because I love pizza meat loaf) that I believe is our creator based on the 5 words above... but that doesn't stink of rotten eggs.


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why not accept Christ as your savior?  If Christianiy is true then you win, and if it's just a fairy tale then you have lost nothing in the end.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager


skip to the 55 second mark and listen for about a minute or two....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's like telling me if I believe in Santa then I can at least have the possibility that he'll climb down my chimney and leave me gifts... or I just act like a fool for my lifetime... Yet I have to devote my life to all of the junk in this case.



Listen brother if it kept my children out of hades, I would climb up a bee tree naked and backwards twice a day.  As far as "all of the junk" yeah, I guess that loving your neighbor as yourself, showing mercy and compassion to all, etc. is a pretty useless creed.



TripleXBullies said:


> SFD.. you are taking that very risk. By claiming the exclusivity of christianity, you completely deny all other views and risk each and every one of them being true. But you "know" you're not risking anything at all, because you believe those other faiths are untrue. I "know" I'm not risking anything with myself or my daughter because I believe your faith to be untrue, as well as the others that we both agree are untrue and find no need to cover our behinds with.



All truth claims are exclusive and all require at least some leap of faith, because some answers are simply not known.  The best we can do in searching for the truth is to ask ourselves which one is the most comprehensive in providing answers the questions of life regarding origin, meaning, destiny and morality so that each answer is not only correspondingly true to the respective question but coherent when taken as a whole.  No other truth claim comes remotely close to that of the Christ of Christianity in answering these in such a fashion.  Does it still require a 'leap of faith'?  Yes.  Is this leap as big as that required of other truth claims including Athiesm?  Not even close.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> All truth claims are exclusive and all require at least some leap of faith, because some answers are simply not known.  The best we can do in searching for the truth is to ask ourselves which one is the most comprehensive in providing answers the questions of life regarding origin, meaning, destiny and morality so that each answer is not only correspondingly true to the respective question but coherent when taken as a whole.  No other truth claim comes remotely close to that of the Christ of Christianity in answering these in such a fashion.  Does it still require a 'leap of faith'?  Yes.  Is this leap as big as that required of other truth claims including Athiesm?  Not even close.



Man, what a fantastic post.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager



Your point?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

So you admit, you are risking the same thing that I am... Maybe slightly less, bur marginally less. You believe 9,999 faiths to be untrue. I believe that 10,000 are untrue. That is a marginal difference. But if it's significant... I'm certain you wouldn't think I'm covering my behind well enough to choose and one of those other 9,999 to believe so that we are mathematically equal with covering our behinds? N?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Man, what a fantastic post.



Chearleading huh????


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Chearleading huh????


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you admit, you are risking the same thing that I am..



No that is not what was said nor implied.  You are taking a monumental risk with not only your but your loved ones life.



TripleXBullies said:


> . Maybe slightly less, bur marginally less. You believe 9,999 faiths to be untrue. I believe that 10,000 are untrue.



Marginal is infinitely large if the difference is between true and false.



TripleXBullies said:


> That is a marginal difference. But if it's significant... I'm certain you wouldn't think I'm covering my behind well enough to choose and one of those other 9,999 to believe so that we are mathematically equal with covering our behinds? N?



No.  You are correct I don't.  Wouldn't want to see you and your loved ones miss out due to bet on probability.


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your point?



You asked why some people don't take a certain position and the answer is that it is a stupid position for all the reasons outlined in that summary.  Your question is not original and has been answered by many for a long time and pointing you to commonly known answers is easier than typing or explaining from scratch.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> You asked why some people don't take a certain position and the answer is that it is a stupid position for all the reasons outlined in that summary.



The summary starts with the presupposition that there is no God and argues from that point.  If that presupposition is wrong then there is no question more important than that of eternal destiny.  Either way I think the "stupid" comment reflects more on you than which ever belief system one holds.



JFS said:


> Your question is not original and has been answered by many for a long time



I never suggested it was original.  Not sure where that came from.



JFS said:


> and pointing you to commonly known answers is easier than typing or explaining from scratch.



I'm sure it is.


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The summary starts with the presupposition that there is no God and argues from that point.



It starts from the position held by the group at which you directed your question:



> It seems to me most Athiest are very pragmatic in their views. That being the case, Why not accept Christ as your savior?



If you want to direct your question to those who suppose there is a god you'll need to reformulate your question.


----------



## JFS (Jun 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Either way I think the "stupid" comment reflects more on you than which ever belief system one holds.



Yah, your right, my bad, your question was very insightful and I'm sure we all spent a lot of time pondering whether we should believe in Santa Claus once TXB pointed out the analogous application of your reasoning.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You would make her a robot, and in the process end the ability to love her or have a true relationship with her.



She can cuss and wail all she wants as she's tied to a post but I'm not gonna stand by and watch her put her hands in a lawnmower.

I'm neither all goodness nor omnipotent so I may be shortsighted.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 22, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I have yet to find a "free will" argument that does not choke on the problem of good and evil. God has a good purpose for evil.



I never met an atheist who didn't choke on the fact that nature/science provides neither "good" nor "evil."


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 22, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because of the fire in eyeballs for eternity.



Maybe you don't understand how much of God's goodness you experience everyday and how vast of a difference hades would be from the place you call home now. 

If God is all good-etc then an absence of something all good would by definition have to be terrible. At least he warns you of this...


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 22, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> She can cuss and wail all she wants as she's tied to a post but I'm not gonna stand by and watch her put her hands in a lawnmower.
> 
> I'm neither all goodness nor omnipotent so I may be shortsighted.



Go tie yourself and your children up. Right now. Everyday, there is the chance you could die in some way or another, yet you make the choice everyday to live with those risks. 
Simply taking your children to school could be deadly. 
Why not be much safer and live in a bubble? 
Why do you continually place yourself and your children in dangerous situations?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can smell a "rotten egg" and say that no egg is necessary in the first place.



Really?  Then account for the sense of smell and your sense of rottenness.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

JFS said:


> Yah, your right, my bad, your question was very insightful and I'm sure we all spent a lot of time pondering whether we should believe in Santa Claus once TXB pointed out the analogous application of your reasoning.



Guess it would be asking too much of you to provide a well reasoned counter argument to support your position "from scratch"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 24, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I never met an atheist who didn't choke on the fact that nature/science provides neither "good" nor "evil."



And I never met a theist who wouldn't vomit their indoctrination about where they heard it came from.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> And I never met a theist who wouldn't vomit their indoctrination about where they heard it came from.



You provide your worldview on reality just like a theist does.


----------

