Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 635 by Blastcat]



Your interpretations in red show that you ate not understanding what I am trying to purvey here.

When did I say I " won the debate ". ? How many debates are " won" discussing religion ?

The point I making is to inform, so proper perspective will be attained , of why God simply does not prove himself all. I am not arguing anything I am telling others why this is . So using this as to think " I won" , does not even work here


1-5...

This is about what they are giving and how they give it and the repercussions of how they give their wealth to their kids . This is not about comparing them to God. The analogy is in the negative repercussions of just giving one everything they could ever need , without any growing of the character to have a sincere appreciation for what they have recieved. The same desire for a sincere appreciation that parents long for , is the same one the God of the bible desires.

This is by design , to create sincerity. The way the OP has it will only breed insincerity.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 636 by Faithful One]

Your interpretations in red show that you ate not understanding what I am trying to purvey here.

When did I say I " won the debate ". ? How many debates are " won" discussing religion ?

I see my error. I apologize for exaggerating to make a point.
I should have written something like:


Faithful One: "I have an EXCELLENT analogy when I say that I have."

Congratulating yourself in a debate ( THIS IS A DEBATE, after all ) is trying to demonstrate that you win some point. I will leave the evaluation of your analogy and of our debate to the readers.

I find yours to be a very bad analogy.

The point I making is to inform, so proper perspective will be attained , of why God simply does not prove himself all. I am not arguing anything I am telling others why this is . So using this as to think " I won" , does not even work here

Faithful One:"I am NOT engaging in an argument when I am arguing my case."

Maybe a definition of what an argument is in a debate might help you at this point:

1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation:
a violent argument.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
6. subject matter; theme:
7. an abstract or summary of the major points in a work of prose or poetry, or of sections of such a work.

In a debate, we present ARGUMENTS. ( definitions 2, 3, 4, 5 ). Hope that helps.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument

You might not realize that you are engaging in argumentation. It's your ARGUMENT ( thesis, point of view, theme, persuasive discourse, reason, for your point, debate, discussion ) that God does not have to prove anything, and why. So, yes, you are arguing. You have given us your opinion, but you have not demonstrated that your point is justified.

Your argument doesn't show what you want it to show.

The example you provided simply does NOT work to demonstrate your point is reasonable.

This is about what they are giving and how they give it and the repercussions of how they give their wealth to their kids . This is not about comparing them to God.

Faithful One : "An analogy between a millionaire parent and a god is NOT a comparison between a millionaire parent and a god."

You seem to not understand the common usage of the word "analogy". When you say that you aren't making a COMPARISON.. you are mistaken.

An analogy is "a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based" .. in this case, you COMPARE human rich parents to your idea of a god.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

The analogy is in the negative repercussions of just giving one everything they could ever need , without any growing of the character to have a sincere appreciation for what they have recieved. The same desire for a sincere appreciation that parents long for , is the same one the God of the bible desires.

This is by design , to create sincerity. The way the OP has it will only breed insincerity

You assert that you KNOW the desires of this god of the Bible. You haven't demonstrated how. I will accept that you have an OPINION about what the Bible authors wrote.

However, opinions are not facts.
If you want to demonstrate the TRUTH of your assertions, please do so.
But I can't see how you have done so yet.

[tam]

[Replying to Hatuey]

Yeah I have a bad habit in doing that...................oops!

But I'm glad you see my point. So let me try here without the grammatical jigsaw.

So here's another one.

For the Christian the claim is salvation through Christ and Christ only. So if you raise a child as a Christian and they deny or reject such salvation and end up dying before you as a parent die and you know on their death bed your child never accepted Christ do you get to live the rest of your life in mental anguish knowing your child is burning in hell?

Or when you die and go to heaven where all tears are wiped away are you given a spiritual lobotomy from your memory on Earth of your child's existence so you aren't aware of their suffering in hell while you are in heaven?

Or does a window from heaven allow you to relish and rejoice in the pain of the damned as some interpret from scriptures?

Seems like a bad deal around for everyone saved or not.

It has occurred to me that an inspired and directed canon of scriptures into a Bible would have covered the bases in such nonsensical theological snafus if it had any divine guidance behind it.

As it is, the Christian faith has had centuries to put this all together and they still can't get a consistent or logical theology out of it all.

That is some revelation by some personal God there. Sounds just like if the stuff was all made up by superstitious ignorant humans to me.

The 'christian hell' is neither biblical, nor of love, nor of God and Christ, nor real.

Because what you state above is accurate: who in the world could have any peace in this world or the next, knowing that your loved ones are burning in hell? From what is written (even though the christian hell does not come from what is written, but rather what has been extrapolated from what is written, based on traditions of men and a lack of knowing God/love):

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Rahab acting in her faith saved her entire family.

The blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt caused Death (the Destroyer) to pass over the entire house, saving everyone IN that house. Even the Egyptian houses if the Egyptians had exercised faith in Jah instead of in Pharaoh.


This is as my Lord has revealed to me (and not only to me of course). But these things that are written serve as examples so that anyone can see - as well as hear - that we do not have to be afraid for our loved ones. True, our loved ones may not all be in Christ, and so may not be Christian, and so may not rule with Him as king-priests in His Kingdom, but the sheep (from the sheep and the goats parable) are also not Christian, and they are invited into the Kingdom, as subjects of that Kingdom.



So... yeah... no hell. That would be, as you have said, a bad deal for everyone.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Wow Tam...........no hell?

Would you consider yourself a universalist then?...........or if a person is not saved does their soul then just stop existing like before they were born? (seems theology teaches they are eternal so what would happen to them?)

I would find many Christian's claiming Holy Spirit revelation in direct contrast with this view...............please explain further when you get a chance.

Thanks.....

I don't know if it is a small answer. I am not a universalist, because that theology is also untrue, as much as I might wish it were otherwise.

When someone (not in Christ) dies they go to the world of the dead (sheol/hades... which has been translated as 'hell' in most places in the bible). There, they await the resurrection of the dead. They are not conscious or anything. There is not enough life in them for that. They are also not being tortured. All Israel expected to go there when they died, as they waited for the resurrection of the dead (this is the second resurrection)

And since the Judgment has not yet occurred, no one has yet been judged, so as to be punished in some burning hellfire.

**


There are two resurrections. The first resurrection is for those in Christ. When Christ returns, both those who belong to Him who have died and those who belong to Him who are still alive at His coming are gathered up to Him.


"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection."

**

After those thousand years are over, comes the second resurrection. That is the resurrection of the dead, where everyone else (other than those who belonged to Christ and were gathered up in the first resurrection), great and small, is resurrected. Some are resurrected to life and so invited into the Kingdom, and some are resurrected to judgment and the second death.

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

**

The lake of fire is the second death. Not the second place of eternal life, in torment.


Hope that helps. I'm not sure if that was what you were asking about. Perhaps what was given me to share on this thread would help also because it is a lot more clear:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=870

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PghPanther]

I'm sure you're not going to like my response, but here it is anyway.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 1:18-20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

God has made himself evident in nature and in an individual's conscience, but people choose to repress that knowledge. Therefore, there is no excuse for anybody to reject God.

God has revealed himself and continues to reveal himself all the time. The fact that not everybody acknowledges him doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Nor does it mean he hasn't provided convincing evidence of himself. It just means that some people will reject him in spite of the evidence for a variety of reasons.

Those who reject him for so-called rational reasons should be willing to listen to rational arguments about the existence of God and come to a saving faith in Christ. And the atheists in this category are the most likely to.

But those who reject him for emotional reasons (anger at him for tragedy or hardship in their lives, for example) or for volitional reasons (they don't want him to exist because they don't want to give up their sins) may never allow him into their lives. The people who fall in these two categories will often use the first category to hide behind rather than admit the real reasons for their rejection of God.

For more on that, read here:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/wh ... convinced/

J. Warner Wallace admits that he was in the third category, choosing to be an atheist because he didn't want to give up his sins. People like Lee Strobel were in the first category and, when presented with the rational evidence, followed it to its rational end -- belief in God.

The second category is the trickiest one. If emotion drives a person, it's hard to reason with him. He needs healing, but he rejects the one who can heal him, that is, Jesus Christ.

When people had no method by which to understand how nature works they presumed it was the result of a complex super being..........we know better now to make such an assumption with the scientific method as a process but which to understand ourselves and the environment around us.

No one in those days had a clue about that so they just assumed a "God did it attitude"

That's no pathway to discover the reality of nature.........

[Danmark]

Every time I see this title, I want to respond with the obvious truth:

"Because there is no God to do the convincing."

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Hatuey]

IF I can ask you a question:

Why won't Christians just face the facts and abandon their silly notion about a God?

[KenRU]

[Replying to Hatuey]

IF I can ask you a question:

Why won't Christians just face the facts and abandon their silly notion about a God?

If I may offer an opinion, perhaps it is because it is often hard to leave the faith one is brought up in?

After all, aren't most adults still practicing the faith they were taught as a child - whether Christian, Hindu or other?


Surely you don't think that a coincidence?

All the best

[JLB32168]

Why won't Christians just face the facts and abandon their silly notion about a God?

Why wont atheists just face the facts and abandon the silly notion that the entire universe appeared from nothing and that man is the result of a series of cosmic belches and that he produced religions to explain it all?

As a side, Im a believer and an evolutionist. Evolution selects against that which isnt beneficial to man. To hear many on this board, religion is only deleterious to everyone and yet evolution hasnt selected against it.

[catnip]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

The problem here is with the word "punishing". It is a shame that that ever entered into the faith. Ironically, the control freaks that created that particular and very strange view of God would be hell bound for doing it--if their version of hell existed.

Decent people? I believe that we are all good by our very creation. And that is indestructible. In this world, however, we are tempted. The idea is to overcome the world. What could be a worse hell than this world--where people can suffer pain, sickness, hunger, addiction, deprivation, abuse?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 642 by KenRU]

That is one explanation; which can be simplified: "they aren't being driven by reason". This goes both ways. The OP assumes atheists (or at least the ones he has in mind) are quite sensible. Of course! Everyone thinks they are being sensible about their deepest convictions, atheist or not.