toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

[serpentdove]

And here we see more of SD obsession with how I live my life...

And here we see Persephone66's hatred and rebellion toward God:

...I'd spit in his eye, give him the finger, say a few things that I can't say here. Pretty much not hold back and let him know what I really think.

And then I'll ride away on the invisible pink unicorn and visit the Flying Spaghetti Monster and share a barrel of bloodwine with him and Chancellor Gowron.

Your life is perverse (1 Ki 14:24). :vomit: : The bad news is, you are a sinner on an express train to hell (1 Co 6:9). The good news is: Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

 

[Granite]

If I had such a view of the Christian god, I would be right in your camp with you. As it is, though, God in no way resembles this picture you paint, so no worries :e4e:

Well if you all could actually agree on what God is like, NM, maybe we heretics and heathens wouldn't be so confused.

 

[Silent Hunter]

And here we see Persephone66's hatred and rebellion toward God:

Your life is perverse (1 Ki 14:24). :vomit: : The bad news is, you are a sinner on an express train to hell (1 Co 6:9). The good news is: Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

:mock: serpentdove.

. . . godrulz's alter ego . . . :loser:.

 

[serpentdove]

:mock: serpentdove.

. . . godrulz's alter ego . . . :loser:.

Godrulz and I disagree on the nature of God. :thumb: Thank you for brining it up. :listen: Maybe he'll address that one day. :deadhorse: What part of Jesus could have sinned? Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2.

 

[voltaire]

Why do you have such a revulsion to vicarious redemption skavau?

 

[voltaire]

GR- with all due respect,
your posts generally are
declarations of what you
believe, and rarely, if ever,
include any real reasoning
or arguments. Just "this is
the way it is, and boy are
you in for it if you don't
accept this."
This is not a very convincing
approach.
Skavau---------Chair. Although im more in agreement with godrulz than chair in this thread, Chair is exactly right about godrulz persuasive abilities.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Godrulz and I disagree on the nature of God. Thank you for brining it up. Maybe he'll address that one day. What part of Jesus could have sinned? Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2.

. . . you both have the same "basic" style as described here . . . "your posts generally are declarations of what you believe, and rarely, if ever, include any real reasoning or arguments. Just "this is the way it is, and boy are you in for it if you don't accept this." -- chair

 

[Silent Hunter]

GR- with all due respect,
your posts generally are
declarations of what you
believe, and rarely, if ever,
include any real reasoning
or arguments. Just "this is
the way it is, and boy are
you in for it if you don't
accept this."
This is not a very convincing
approach.
Skavau---------Chair. Although im more in agreement with godrulz than chair in this thread, Chair is exactly right about godrulz persuasive abilities.

:thumb:

 

[El DLo]

You are just a better atheist failing to see God's standards are higher than yours. Good for you that you are not a pedophile, but His law condemns even lust or fornication.

Good for you that you do not murder, but hate is also a violation of his law.

Compared to Hitler, you are a swell guy. Compared to Jesus/God, you are a dirty rotten sinner in need of a sinless Savior.

God does not grade on a bell curve. We are all condemned sinners who cannot save ourselves. Your self-righteous attempts will not bridge the gap between a holy God and sinful man. Only the cross can do this.

You are saying that God wasted His time dying on the cross and shedding blood to redeem us. You are saying your ways are higher than God's ways. This is ignorance, arrogance, pride.

The gospel is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), but it is foolishness to those who are perishing (wise Gentiles), a stumbling block to Jews (I Cor. 1:18).

If self-reformation was sufficient, the cross would not have happened.

I'm sorry, can you point me to the quote where I indicated that I feel hatred for others, or that I'm a fornicator? It just appears to me as though you're making assertions based on my lack of a belief in God that are totally founded upon nothing.

From what it seems, the only true standard that God has is to impishly throw yourself at his mercy. Morals need not apply when you have Jesus in your heart, right? Well morally, at least those morals that pertain to how people treat themselves and others (which should be the important ones), I'm more "pure" than many of the Christians that I know. Are you suggesting that these Christians will be receiving a free bid into heaven while I'm left to rot in hell solely because of their belief?

The funny thing here is that a belief isn't a choice. You can't choose to believe because a belief is instinctual and founded sub-consciously. I could try to convince myself that there's a God, but deep down it won't change the fact that I don't believe in one. By your logic, God caused me to be that way, so tell me what my purpose is on Earth? Do I exist as a means to test the exclusive faithful such as yourself? Why instill people with a feeling that doesn't actually derive from free will?

 

[nicholsmom]

Well if you all could actually agree on what God is like, NM, maybe we heretics and heathens wouldn't be so confused.

Yeah, we are a bit like a bunch of blind men encountering an elephant. To say that God is huge doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. To say that He is complex only shows that we aren't completely without sense. God is so other, so unique and we so fixed in our temporal/carnal mindset, that it is hard to even imagine something remotely like a being who is self-existent and from whose existence/being all of creation "flows" naturally. All we have to go on is how this God interacts with humanity, the words He has inspired in the writers of Scripture, our own experiences with Him, and the witness of others. Put together, that is bound to result in somewhat varied viewpoints on the likeness of God.

But really, when you get down to the basics, we all agree more than we disagree - even Open Viewers agree with Calvinists more than they disagree (if they could just get past the language issue, they would see that).

But I do see your point.

 

[nicholsmom]

That depends. Unless you are a universalist, your disagreement with me is likely to be based solely in semantics.

What is your viewpoint concerning 'hell'? Does it exist? Who goes there and why?
What is your viewpoint concerning belief in God and of his sacrifice? Is it necessary for salvation?
What is your position on 'original sin', or our own imperfection? Is it designed or is it passed on?

Your questions reveal your blindness. Who is God? What is holiness? How do these things affect the universe and those who live in it? The answers to these questions give a clearer picture.

It is like looking at a lion and asking me if it has teeth and if it kills innocent animals to stay alive. How does it choose its prey and is it fair to kill the babies before they have a chance to grow strong and fast enough to escape? Why not learn about the lion before considering its prey? And no, I am NOT saying that sinners are God's prey lain:

I am saying that God is so much more than what you have imagined - without God there would be nothing; if God ceased to be, then so would everything. When we focus on stupid things like comparing sins, the fate of various sinners, and our own inability to come to God or even see our own sin, we miss the point. We exist because God is Who He is. Should we not care about that? What do we owe to the One who, not only created it all, but also keeps the whole universe "running" by the force of His existence/will?

Even if you think that the whole universe is some sort of cosmic singularity (I mean the violations of the laws of physics had to be huge, but only one time and never again, or we couldn't be here), you can't be certain. It is at least equally possible that the whole thing was created by some being totally other than - transcendent over - the universe. And if that is the case, what sort of being would that be? Should we not wonder and seek to find out? If God created it all, do we owe that God anything? Acknowledgment? Curiosity about Him? I think we do.

 

[Skavau]

Why do you have such a revulsion to vicarious redemption skavau?

I've explained it frequently. It is the direct act of scapegoating one's moral responsibilities onto another, absolving themselves of moral accountability. That alone makes it anti-pragmatic.

 

[Skavau]

Your questions reveal your blindness. Who is God? What is holiness? How do these things affect the universe and those who live in it? The answers to these questions give a clearer picture.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that in addition to being both atheistic and agnostic I am also an ignostic. That is, that I consider the concept of God to be incoherent as often as it is self-refuting. That there is no coherent definition for a being laced in impossibility. In any case, I respond claims made by theists claiming to be speaking on behalf of said God. If a Muslim or Christian informs me that I am a wretched sinner worthy of nothing less than eternal torture then I rightly feel indignation with such passive support for barbarity. If I am told that I must by decree feel both love and fear for this said being and know that this being knows my every thought and every action, I think I can rightly comment that said beliefs are best shady and at worst born of nightmares. I am responding to what individuals believe about God and not the entire concept of God. When I am say I am anti-theist, or comment that hell is an unjust affair - I am pointing out my contempt for a world-view that includes sadistic permanent torture and a God that would approve of it.

I am saying that God is so much more than what you have imagined - without God there would be nothing; if God ceased to be, then so would everything. When we focus on stupid things like comparing sins, the fate of various sinners, and our own inability to come to God or even see our own sin, we miss the point.

You're glossing over the details. The details of which, if you are anti-torture are entirely necessary to explain. I cannot be told to ignore the fact that this God you describe might endorse eternal torture for our own nature, or for own inability to worship him.

We exist because God is Who He is. Should we not care about that? What do we owe to the One who, not only created it all, but also keeps the whole universe "running" by the force of His existence/will?

Why should I care about that? I'm an atheist. I am responding to claims about God.

Even if you think that the whole universe is some sort of cosmic singularity (I mean the violations of the laws of physics had to be huge, but only one time and never again, or we couldn't be here), you can't be certain. It is at least equally possible that the whole thing was created by some being totally other than - transcendent over - the universe. And if that is the case, what sort of being would that be? Should we not wonder and seek to find out? If God created it all, do we owe that God anything? Acknowledgment? Curiosity about Him? I think we do.

We would not owe any hypothetical God unflinching obedience or unquestionable adulation of his inherent 'prowess'. Only a masochist would argue that we should.

It is one thing to seek out whether or not a God exists, but another to surrender our intellectual faculties (that he endowed upon us) to scrutinize his possible agenda.

 

[Granite]

Yeah, we are a bit like a bunch of blind men encountering an elephant. To say that God is huge doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. To say that He is complex only shows that we aren't completely without sense. God is so other, so unique and we so fixed in our temporal/carnal mindset, that it is hard to even imagine something remotely like a being who is self-existent and from whose existence/being all of creation "flows" naturally. All we have to go on is how this God interacts with humanity, the words He has inspired in the writers of Scripture, our own experiences with Him, and the witness of others. Put together, that is bound to result in somewhat varied viewpoints on the likeness of God.

But really, when you get down to the basics, we all agree more than we disagree - even Open Viewers agree with Calvinists more than they disagree (if they could just get past the language issue, they would see that).

But I do see your point.

Well, yes: if it's a question like the elephant, just based on statistics, the odds are most Christians are very mistaken and only grasp as much of the truth as, say, a Hindu or Buddhist might. So essentially, assuming there's any kind of judgmental God whatsoever in the afterlife, it's senseless to worry about him (or her) and prepare a defense of any kind.

 

[voltaire]

---Quote (Originally by
voltaire)---
Why do you have such a
revulsion to vicarious
redemption skavau?
---End Quote---
I've explained it frequently. It
is the direct act of
scapegoating one's moral
responsibilities onto
another, absolving
themselves of moral
accountability. That alone
makes it anti-pragmatic.
***************
..So if your crimes against humanity and God are deemed punishable as 50 billion lashes by a bullwhip where you get a new body to be bullwipped again when the old body dies, you would take that punishment yourself instead of letting Jesus pay the debt for you instead through his vicarious redemption?

 

[godrulz]

Well if you all could actually agree on what God is like, NM, maybe we heretics and heathens wouldn't be so confused.

I think we can eliminate man-made Buddha statues as the true God. We can show that Hinduism and its millions of gods is also incoherent. Scientology is as stupid as it gets.

Like any field of study, we can approximate truth with some perseverance.

Once we validate the Word of God and the person of Jesus Christ, we can have great consensus on what is true vs false god. The largest religion in the world agrees on the basics of Christian truth. We can study the origins of Mormons and JWs (centers around one man) and see that they are modern perversions with no historical roots to the early church/Christ.

God has given us sufficient reason and revelation to come to the truth (as hundreds of millions have found out).

We can also take atheism off the table as a viable world view. Even if there were only two religious views in the world (one is following the god of cookie monster vs Judeo-Christianity), you would still find reason to not believe and cling to atheism. Unity does not mean uniformity. We do not have to agree on every peripheral detail to know and embrace Yahweh (who is real, unlike Allah, etc.).

 

[Granite]

I think we can eliminate man-made Buddha statues as the true God.

That's good, considering Buddhists don't consider the statues to be gods, either.

We can show that Hinduism and its millions of gods is also incoherent. Scientology is as stupid as it gets.

If incoherency and stupidity constitute your litmus test, GR, much of Christianity's in pretty sorry shape.

Once we validate the Word of God and the person of Jesus Christ, we can have great consensus on what is true vs false god.

:rotfl:

In other words, once we agree that Christianity is correct, we can rule out all other religions. No kidding.

 

[Skavau]

..So if your crimes against humanity and God are deemed punishable as 50 billion lashes by a bullwhip where you get a new body to be bullwipped again when the old body dies, you would take that punishment yourself instead of letting Jesus pay the debt for you instead through his vicarious redemption?

There would and could be no circumstance where such a sadistic punishment would be appropriate or moral. Whatever my 'crimes' are, they are not infinite and do not deserve such a response.

 

[voltaire]

Well, yes: if it's a question
like the elephant, just
based on statistics, the
odds are most Christians
are very mistaken and only
grasp as much of the truth
as, say, a Hindu or Buddhist
might. So essentially,
assuming there's any kind
of judgmental God
whatsoever in the afterlife,
it's senseless to worry
about him (or her) and
prepare a defense of any
kind-----Granite. The trouble with that is that the great chasm of difference between christianity and other religions is orders of magnitude greater than the differences among christians and there isnt much of a judgemental god amongst the other religions other than islam.

 

[voltaire]

Skavau. I note your objections to my scenario. The issue is vicarious redemption. Would you or would you not be avoiding your moral responsibilities if you avoided the bullwhipping by letting the 2nd person of the Godhead take the punishment for you?