Mageth

I agree in that those who have never heard the gospel won't be held accountable. God will judge them based on if they made any attempt to seek something above him because God says the truth is known. Just alot of them deny it or are decieved.

That may be true according to one interpretation of the Bible, but I believe the bible also says something along the lines that each will be [i]held accountable[/b] according to his (or, presumably, her) knolwedge, or actions, or...? In fact, if you look at all the scriptures, it's hard to come to a conclusion just exactly who will be held accountable for their sins.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Umm, not so fast there. How is something invisible "clearly seen?" And you're still left with the problem that, yes, I've seen "creation", and for the life of me (pun sorta intended) can't see the god in it, nor have I found anything in "creation" that requires a god to explain it. I'm not denying anything, nor am I deceived by anything. I merely lack belief in something.

It is not my place to make the decision of where you will go since only God knows your heart and true motives.

You've shown a different sentiment in some posts you've made here, where you've more or less judged us atheists as hellbound...

However, we know you have heard of the Gospel and how to be saved, ...

Actually, I've heard several different ways to be "saved." Ever heard of the faith vs. works theological dispute? If you guys can't agree, what are we poor non-believers supposed to think? The plain fact of the matter is that Christians don't agree on who will be "saved." The bible's little help in this area; it can b used to support a variety of positions.

...yet atheists blatantly reject it -

There's a difference between "blatantly rejecting" something and not believing in that something. And if Xians can't conclusively agree on "how to be saved," why should I believe it?

...you can't claim you don't believe in God and not know what the term God means or who Jesus is based on the Bible.

I definitely do know what all those things are supposed to mean, who Jesus is supposed to be (although there doesn't seem to be much consensus in these areas either, even among theists). My problem is basic, though; I can't believe in a god without evidence.

You all have knowledge of the gospel but choose to reject it.

So the bible says; I don't believe the bible, remember? It's not that I reject it, it's that I don't believe it.

Based on that understanding, one could conclude atheists probably aren't saved - doesn't mean they can't be saved though - you have a chance to be saved as long as you're alive.

Nitpicking, perhaps, but an atheist could never be "saved", the way I understand the term. One would have to be a theist to be saved. Theism, first; salvation, second.

But i won't say any of you specifically aren't saved, only that Atheists have heard the Gospel ( Christians tell you about it all the time) and blatantly reject it as fantasy, myth, and lies and you probably don't fall into the category of not being held accountable.

Enough of the "blatantly" already. This just serves to show your sensitivity or even anger that we don't believe what you believe. I might as well say that you "blatantly" reject atheism.

Further, the bible seems to indicate that all will be "held accountable":

(2 Cor 5:10) "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

(Rom 14:10) "But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of christ."

But wait, it also says:

"Where no law is there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)

"The times of ignoronce God winked at" (Acts 17:3O).

"This is the (basis of) condemnation (krisis, judgment), that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light." (John 3:19)

"If ye were blind (that is, ignorant), ye should have no sin." (John 9:41)

"To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4 :17)

"Better not to have known the way of righteousness than, after they have known, to turn from the holy commandment" (2 Peter 2: 21).

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. But now they have no cloak (RV: excuse) for their sin" (John 15:22).

and, under the Law of Moses:

"Every disobedience received a just recompense of reward" (Hebrews 2:2).

Not to mention the infamous "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of god" and "There's no one righteous, no, not one" verses.

Personally, I have a hard time reaching a conclusion from all this mess.

7thangel

As far as I am concern, it is the atheists who have the problem of evil; for they say that good and evil is relative. When God says "it is good," the atheists say "that is relative." Even if the case be true, there is no reason for them to be against God.

As for me, I have shared my views on some of my posts concerning the existence of evil.

How much do atheists know that they can conclude there is no God? They are requiring evidences, yet they do not judge themselves of their own methodology of finding truth.

Does not atheists themselves, by conclusion, say that existence doesn't make sense? And if you have read the thread, majority seem convinced that the meaning of existence is relative to one's desire to give meaning of his own existence? How then we question God of his desires on his creation?

GRACE, that is the answer. If we are saved by grace then he is just and merciful. As simple as that.

Atheist seek for evidence. The truth is that it is easy for God to prove that he exists. The thing is we should learn and have knowledge of his godhead. So that when he proves himself that he truly exists and reign over us, no one will be murmurers.

This is a very weak one. It is not religion. But ignorance, pride, gluttony, etc., of men.

Yep:

6. God did not reveal the godhead unto them.

7. God had blinded their eyes that they should believe a lie.

These last two happens to atheists and theists.


Was it written by atheist/s?

MrDarwin

Hmmmmm. So if those who claim to have a relationship may or may not, how are those of us who do not claim to have such a relationship make a judgment as to who we should listen to? For example, luvluv, you seem to think you are preaching truth, but by your own words there is no way for me to know that you are. Why then should I pay any attention to what you say regarding God or salvation?

luvluv, I have had at least 3 different groups that call themselves Christians try to "save" me: Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. They all seemed like pretty good and decent people but these 3 groups all have very different ideas about such seemingly basic things as "God", "Jesus", "salvation", and "damnation". Moreover, none of them considers the other groups to be "true" Christians. Which of them is right, if any? Which of them are wrong? Tell me, who should I be listening to, and why should I think that you are telling me the truth any more than these groups were? If anything, the preaching of Christians like you, and Radorth, and Magus on II have convinced me even more surely that the Christian concept of God is not the correct one.

luvluv, I consider myself a seeker of truth and I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not really an atheist. I'm an agnostic, but it's usually easier to call myself an atheist because I find the Christian concept of god utterly unconvincing, and that's the concept that's usually on the table for discussion. I don't believe in any god(s) but I don't rule out the possibility--and if there is or are any, I expect it or them to be completely unlike the deity that Christians seem to believe in. In the meantime I live my life as best I can, always seeking the truth even if I never find it, or only find little bits and pieces of it.

luvluv, do you truly believe that, if I turn out to be wrong, I will stand before your God and be condemned for having honestly sought the truth and not finding it? And if it is your preaching that has helped turn me away from that truth, what will God do to you?

Mageth

As far as I am concern, it is the atheists who have the problem of evil; for they say that good and evil is relative. When God says "it is good," the atheists say "that is relative." Even if the case be true, there is no reason for them to be against God.

I'm an atheist. I never say that "good and evil is relative" (sic). Being atheist doesn't require one to hold a relativistic morality, Xian protestations notwithstanding. Further, I'm not "against" god; I just don't believe a god exists.

And the PoE applies to theism, not atheism.

How much do atheists know that they can conclude there is no God? They are requiring evidences, yet they do not judge themselves of their own methodology of finding truth.

It's not what we know that leads us to conclude there is no god; it's what we don't know that doesn't allow us to conclude that there is a god. I'm not clear on what the second sentence is trying to say.

Does not atheists themselves, by conclusion, say that existence doesn't make sense?

No, not really. But why should existence "make sense"?

And if you have read the thread, majority seem convinced that the meaning of existence is relative to one's desire to give meaning of his own existence?

Personally, I don't think there is any Meaning (with a capital M) to existence. And yes, we all do, or should, give meaning to our own existence.

How then we question God of his desires on his creation?

I lack belief in god. The only thing I question is yours or others' description of your god's desires for his creation, including myself.

GRACE, that is the answer. If we are saved by grace then he is just and merciful. As simple as that.

That's fine for those apparent few who are "saved by grace." But what about those that aren't saved by grace? If you believe it, is it just and/or merciful for them to be subjected to eternal suffering?

Atheist seek for evidence. The truth is that it is easy for God to prove that he exists. The thing is we should learn and have knowledge of his godhead. So that when he proves himself that he truly exists and reign over us, no one will be murmurers.

Umm, OK. I promise not to murmer if god ever gets around to proving himself.

6. God did not reveal the godhead unto them.

Then shame on god.

7. God had blinded their eyes that they should believe a lie.

Double shame on god. Where's the justice, mercy and grace in #6 and #7?

These last two happens to atheists and theists.

Or they might happen if god existed (rather, if this particular definition of god existed).

Darwin26

i was born an atheist...after reading most of the foregoing my heart aches for the lonely believers .....i shall be an atheist inperpetuity.
The claims of some, of clear understanding of omnipotent abstraction and then trying to sell it ... i find it extreme vanity for xians/believers to be marketing their hunches as be all end all.
i have to wonder if you actually buy this propaganda that you ejaculate... Seems to me that to spend such time adding up your pluses reflects the insecurity that this retoric brings to the surface.
i suspect that toying with what happens to you after the worms are done is a cry for help... the inability to cope with dust and a blissful non existance... a search for an insurance policy... based on pure fear ... and hope of rapture to imbibe ...
i feel the xians an believers just want to get drunk on their infatuation with nirvana and vainly seek out the ritual prone to perpetuate their "what if" nonsense... but invain.
Seems the believers/xians need to substanciate their constant mental anguish...putting bibles in hotel rooms...incessant dialogue on who is closer to gawd and his clearly defined wishes and absolute wants.
Absolute Atheists are not all that rare... seeing through the fundy/deeeist hyperbole... pleeze don't save me ....keep your demons and salvation voodoo ... all your 'versus" are but clay feet in the eyes of rational thought.

7thangel

Please bear with me. I do not know who’s who among the atheists in here. Presume I am not referring to you in regards to this matter.

I guess it would be both for theist and atheist. Because we both want to minimize, if not eliminate, evil, am I right?

That is what I am referring to. Why should it be irrational on us to conclude that there is a God when we both agree that it is partly choice in making decision to conclude the matter. On the other hand, don’t we hope and dream of the things of what we be in the future? Don’t we teach our children to struggle and hope for them to succeed? I tell you, no matter how our children fail, we give them hope, even just loving words, and wishful assurances.

Man makes sense. He is the one who put meanings around him. He is the one who gives meaning to what existence is all about. And if man says that his life does not make sense then it does not make sense to him indeed.

In fact that is what is man’s purpose of existence, according to the God. God made man to rule over all things. So as man set meanings, he is the beneficiary of the purposes of giving meaning.

Then please take note of my difference in belief unto other Christians.

There is no eternal suffering. Do not waste your time with these who believe in such arguments. Those not chosen will die and return to dust.

That will be easy to say. But when God show himself that he exists, and then you get confronted and confused of his godhead, you will feel not okay, and that’s for sure. Thus is one reason why we need to understand His godhead.

The reason why God do these two things is for us to understand that we have a robot-inventor relationship with Him. The more we understand this to be true in our experiences, the more we appreciate the grace that God had given us.

In a robot-inventor relationship, the inventor, God, is not evil for creating some robots better than others. The robot has no say on the inventor’s purposes of creating such robots. Else, we would have to say that God should make all clay to be humans.

They are happening as proof of the glory of God’s graciousness. The conclusion of the Bible is that we are saved through God’s predestination. That He is the one who gave everything of our being. Thus man should not glory of his own success over other men, because it is God’s own doing. And that man could understand that his glory is dependent to God’s purpose for him.

Magus55

Rev19:20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone

Rev 20:10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Does that sound like returning to dust to you? Where did you get your idea that the lost and unsaved returned to dust? It's clearly not biblical. I think you are just adding in your own personal beliefs.

Mageth

Does that sound like returning to dust to you? Where did you get your idea that the lost and unsaved returned to dust? It's clearly not biblical. I think you are just adding in your own personal beliefs.

As are you. None of the scriptures you quoted indicate that all humans who don't receive grace are subject to eternal suffering.

This is just one more example of the myriad of different beliefs that can be supported with the bible (e.g. about how one is saved, about who will be saved, and about the fate of those who aren't saved). And one more reason why many of us think the bible is an unreliable source to base your life on.

Mageth

Originally posted by Marlowe
Mageth, you will never find me going to supernatural explanations as my spirituality is completely satisfied by the natural universe, which I thought I made clear in my last post.

Sorry, I missed that.

I also never said that any experience of the divine was externally existent. In fact, it is my belief that the divine is contained within - ourselves and all of existence. This is essentially the definition of pantheism.

Yup. But does that not imply that there is a "divine" which is greater than ourselves, to which we are linked? And which is at least in part external to ourselves?

If you believe the "divine" is contained within, you're not too far from what I believe. I think the "divine" experience may well be some internal state our brains sometimes experience for some as yet unknown benefit to our minds, if you will. Similar to how dreams are by some thought to be some internal housekeeping (e.g. for memory), or perhaps merely our subconscious mind trying to make sense of randomly "fired" memories. Dreams were once thought by some (and probably still are, by some) to be of "divine" origin.

What I'm concerned about is that in our current philosophical state in the West, we only seem to care about things if they are externally existent.

Well, I only care about things if they exist, internally or externally. I don't waste my times on things that don't exist.

You seem to want to disprove people's spiritual experiences by saying they do not indicate anything externally existent, because if there was something externally existent it would be quantifiable and verifiable - but what if these experiences do not point to anything externally existent, but they are still vitally important? Not unlike love, which is likewise contained within, immeasurable and vitally important to the human condition.

I'm not saying that the sense of the divine some may experience doesn't exist or isn't important to the human condition, only that when they experience the "divine", the experience has a naturalistic explanation. Neither theistic nor pantheistic explanations are needed, IMO.

Actually the question of the imagination comes up and is dealt with in Newberg and D'Aquili's research. It is true that stories are capable of lighting up parts of our brains that real experiences also light up. In fact, at one point it is stated that stories appear to engage all of the same neurological functions that real experiences do. Some will take this to downgrade religious experiences to "mere stories", but luvluv is right - if we're going to do that, eventually we have to downgrade all of our sensory experiences to chemical reactions.

Yup, that's what our brain states (e.g. sensory experiences) are, according to science; neurochemical responses. Perhaps a bit mundane and "spiritually" unsatisfying, but that's what the evidence indicates. I can live with that, quite happily I might add.

But I think the significant point here is that, if stories engage the same functions of our brains as reality - then something more is going on with stories than simple "imagination", which it seems Mageth is using to indicate pointless and/ or trivial neural firings in our brains.

And a wonderful thing our naturalistic, physical brains have produced, this human experience, no? I don't consider what we experience "pointless and/or trivial", whether smell, or touch, or hearing, or dreams, or the "divine" experience, BTW, even if they're merely neurochemical responses.

I believe the basic premise of Newberg and D'Aquili is that imagination, stories, religious experiences - all are vital functions that are as important as our rational faculties for comprehending and experiencing life.

I can agree with that, even if the source is truly just neurochemical responses.

It's like - you can break down the taste of chocolate mousse on your tongue to its chemical reactions, but the experience of it is so much more.

Indeed; our minds process our sensory input into what we experience as taste, smell, the divine, etc. No mystery there. In fact, if you remove all sensory input, our minds soon begin to lose focus, lose function, and break down. No external, no internal.

You can break down the religious experience to a bunch of neurons firing and dismiss it, but that'd be like saying you never need to taste chocolate mousse because it's just simple chemical reactions. That's a poor, flavorless life to live.

Not at all. I do not dismiss the sense of the divine, nor has my believing that there is a naturalistic explanation for that sense led to "a poor, flavorless life". The taste of chocolate mousse is indeed pleasurable. So is the sense of the divine. Indeed, I've experienced the sense of the divine, both formerly as a Christian, and now on occasion, such as when alone with nature. I'm glad our brains have evolved to have such experiences. What a wonderful adaptation! What a wonderful brain we have! I'm in awe of its complexity.

The reasons this sense of the divine may have evolved, I'll admit, I do not know. I'm sure there are some theories out there that give plausible explanations.

Mageth

Please bear with me. I do not know who’s who among the atheists in here. Presume I am not referring to you in regards to this matter.

Then be more careful about statements such as "As far as I am concern, it is the atheists who have the problem of evil; for they say that good and evil is relative."

I guess it would be both for theist and atheist. Because we both want to minimize, if not eliminate, evil, am I right?

I think you do not understand what the Problem of Evil argument is. This argument states, more or less, that the existence of evil in the world is inconsistent with the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god.

That is what I am referring to. Why should it be irrational on us to conclude that there is a God when we both agree that it is partly choice in making decision to conclude the matter.

I don't really choose to not believe in god. I lack belief in god because there is insufficient evidence that supports god's existence. If you choose to believe in god in spite of the lack of evidence then, yes, you are being irrational. If you believe in god because you feel there is sufficient evidence that indicates his existence, then you are, perhaps, basing your belief upon reason.

On the other hand, don’t we hope and dream of the things of what we be in the future? Don’t we teach our children to struggle and hope for them to succeed? I tell you, no matter how our children fail, we give them hope, even just loving words, and wishful assurances.

Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with anything?

Man makes sense.

He does? To who? What does it mean to "make sense," in this sense? What sense does humankind make?

He is the one who put meanings around him. He is the one who gives meaning to what existence is all about. And if man says that his life does not make sense then it does not make sense to him indeed.

OK, I really can't argue with that. We feel the need to add meaning to what otherwise is a Meaningless existence. Life with our complex intellects would pretty much suck otherwise.

In fact that is what is man’s purpose of existence, according to the God.

Hold on a sec. You just said that "man" gave meaing to existence. God is an example of one of humankind's efforts to add meaning to existence, to explain life, the universe, and everything. God didn't say it; man said it.

God made man to rule over all things.

Or humans made god, in part, to explain and justify their ruling over all things.

So as man set meanings, he is the beneficiary of the purposes of giving meaning.

What is the "purpose" of giving meaning? I prefer to remove the (unnecessary) middleman of god and say that humans generated meaning(s) for themselves (as you above admit that they do), and has been the beneficiary of those meanings.

Then please take note of my difference in belief unto other Christians.

I do take note of that, all the time. The differences in beliefs among christians is one of the reasons I think christianity is a fundamentally flawed system.

There is no eternal suffering. Do not waste your time with these who believe in such arguments. Those not chosen will die and return to dust.

I appreciate your more humanitarian belief in regards to eternal suffering. If there is a god, I hope you're right. Indeed, to overcome the PoE, this is one belief that a christian must adopt, IMO. I just take one step further than you; I believe we're all going to die and return to dust.

That will be easy to say. But when God show himself that he exists, and then you get confronted and confused of his godhead, you will feel not okay, and that’s for sure. Thus is one reason why we need to understand His godhead.

Hold on; if god's not going to show me that he exists in this life, I'm obviously not going to accept his grace. According to you, therefore, I'm going to die and return to dust. If he does show me he exists, I'd be foolish not to accept his grace. So the above scenario isn't going to happen, is it?

The reason why God do these two things is for us to understand that we have a robot-inventor relationship with Him. The more we understand this to be true in our experiences, the more we appreciate the grace that God had given us.

How could I come to any understanding about god if god does not reveal himself to me and/or blinds me so that I believe a lie? That doesn't make any sense. In any case, I don't see how this could possibly indicate god's justice, mercy or grace.

Perhaps it could, with a narrow definition of "us" as those relatively few "robots" that god chooses to bless with his grace, as you seem to believe. But that scenario does not reveal grace, justice or mercy to me. It reveals an arbitrary creation of two sets of robots, one that automaticall receives what you call "grace", and one that does not. No justice, no mercy. If I'm in the second set, I couldn't receive grace, justice or mercy from god if I wanted to.

In a robot-inventor relationship, the inventor, God, is not evil for creating some robots better than others. The robot has no say on the inventor’s purposes of creating such robots. Else, we would have to say that God should make all clay to be humans.

OK; now think I get what you're saying. God doesn't exhibit justice, mercy and grace to all because he doesn't have to. Shame on us for expecting more from god. And to hell with any concept of Love in relation to god; we're merely robots for him to bless or destroy as he pleases.

You've escaped the PoE by defining god as not omnibenevolent. In fact, such a god can hardly be described as benevolent at all.

And further: here's a "robot" who will say it out front. If god is as you describe, then he is evil and not worhty to be worshipped. We humans are far more capable of justice, mercy and grace than such a god.

They are happening as proof of the glory of God’s graciousness.

Well, if true, it proves the opposite to me; the paucity of god's justice, mercy, and grace. You've defined all graciousness out of your concept of god, IMO. He's just a robot manufacturer, and apparently a not very skilled one. He gives "grace" to the robots he creates "better" and refuses grace to those he doesn't do such a hot job on. If it was his mistake that made me this way, why should I suffer? Grace, to me, would imply that, no matter how flawed I was, god would still accept me (whether I "understand his godhead" or not).

The conclusion of the Bible is that we are saved through God’s predestination.

Umm, not all xians believe that, you know. In fact, I believe it's a minority opinion (not that that proves anything). One more example of the unknowability of the "truth" from the bible, of its unreliability as a basis on which to find "purpose" in life.

That He is the one who gave everything of our being. Thus man should not glory of his own success over other men, because it is God’s own doing. And that man could understand that his glory is dependent to God’s purpose for him.

Right, and us poor robots that god, for some reason, screwed up on (whether intentionally or accidentally) are just thrown on the scrap pile. There's absolutely no justice, mercy or grace in your system.. Is it any surprise that so many thinking, truly ethical people reject this hogwash?