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?

[KenRU]

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Just out of curiosity, how can wiping out all living things on the entire planet (save for Noah, his family and some animals) qualify as the act of a loving entity?

...

This statement does not require GOD to be unloving or to not do such things to accomplish being a GOD of love, merely that HE does NOT love everyone as some emotionally minded but narrow thinking Christians assert, ending in the mud of inconsistency.

Some people are born condemned already and some born to be saved from condemnation based upon their prior true free will decisions. A world of those unloved by GOD, born condemned, can meet their condemnation though HE still loves those not under condemnation.

Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority of how most Christians view God, souls and sin.

Knowing (albeit very little) your take on Christianity from our previous discussions Tru, your take on Christianity does seem to be able to make some sense out of this.

-all the best

[tam]

From Post 482:

...
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
...

Subject to the rule of Christians.

Like we need another theocracy.

Not one run by man claiming to speak for God (whatever version one claims) at least. I think Christendom has had its share of times when it was in charge, and how did that turn out? Inquisitions, abuse, forced conversions, corruption, and the like. Some of that is still going on.

But that was/is man... and not Christ. (even if someone doesn't believe in God, the only option left is that this was man at the helm, and not Christ)

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

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 498 by tam]

What if nature is at the helm instead of any man or God?

[tam]

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Just out of curiosity, how can wiping out all living things on the entire planet (save for Noah, his family and some animals) qualify as the act of a loving entity?

If that act was done to protect the seed (those who belong to God, and through whom Christ would come) from being destroyed before they could even all be born.

If anyone could have gotten on the ark had they faith enough to hear and heed the warning that God was bringing a flood, as Noah heard and obeyed.

Drowning every other living thing on the planet seems like a pretty heinous act to me, its something that a megalomaniacal James Bond villain might do.

Loving god - Biblical Flood. These two seem contradictory to me.

Yes, I understand. Unless one knows the reason why it was necessary, or even considers that it was necessary to protect some from those who would destroy them.

I can reconcile them becuase to me, they are both fictiticous. But when I was a believer, it was something I could never reconcile completely.

For a long time I also did not know how to reconcile the two. But the truth as I have learned never shows God to be doing anything that is not out of love. We may not understand the details of something, or there may be an error in the writing, something was attributed to God that was natural, etc. May even be that something big happened and people were limited in what (scientific) terms they could use to describe it.

That's quite alot of suffering caused by god.

I have found that the suffering is never caused by God. The suffering is always caused by the actions of someone/something else.

Plus, we lost the unicorns : (

Maybe they just evolved into narwhals ; )

(j/k)

-all the best

[/quote]

Thank you, and peace to you also,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

If that act was done to protect the seed (those who belong to God, and through whom Christ would come) from being destroyed before they could even all be born.

So now.. my atheist seed is good. Don't have to drown anyone. Dont have to drown my kids... Whew... saves me. saves my kids. i guess I'm good to go then. But I'm an atheist.. maybe I should have been drowned?

What do you think?

If anyone could have gotten on the ark had they faith enough to hear and heed the warning that God was bringing a flood, as Noah heard and obeyed.

Why WAS there a flood?... Im an evil atheist.. no need to drown me?
why doesn't god not have to drown me.. but had to drown those guys.. all of them.. all the living creatures on earth?

Yes, I understand. Unless one knows the reason why it was necessary, or even considers that it was necessary to protect some from those who would destroy them.

And who does understand the mind of god?

Do you understand the mind of god?.. is that what your claiming here?

For a long time I also did not know how to reconcile the two. But the truth as I have learned never shows God to be doing anything that is not out of love. We may not understand the details of something, or there may be an error in the writing, something was attributed to God that was natural, etc. May even be that something big happened and people were limited in what (scientific) terms they could use to describe it.

So.. maybe this and maybe that... a lot of maybes... but drowning people.. not so maybe.. why is this drowning story about a loving god? Drowning is a good thing for you?

I have found that the suffering is never caused by God. The suffering is always caused by the actions of someone/something else.

Oh, you never BLAME god.. so when God drowns every living creature on earth.. it's not his fault. Something MADE him do that.. poor god.. didn't have a choice.

Maybe they just evolved into narwhals ; )

Maybe this and maybe that.. but.. how about facts?

how about evidence.. ( jk )

Thank you, and peace to you also,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Nobody has to be a slave.. slavery is disgusting.

[tam]

tam wrote: For me to say that I am not okay with what He did, is for me to throw His gift, His sacrifice, His love, everything he suffered for us back into his face. I cannot and will not do that.

I am not OK with having an innocent person tortured and then murdered on my behalf. You are, but not only are you OK with such a thing, you are grateful.

I am grateful to Christ for what He did, even knowing what man was going to do to Him. He was still willing to give HIS life for mine (and not mine alone of course, but for all, for anyone who would accept His gift, for them and for their loved ones).

I am having a hard time understanding why this gratitude is so abhorrent to you. Have you ever seen the movie Brokedown Palace, based on a true story? If you have not, there are two young women who are caught leaving a foreign country with drugs in their bags. Both claim said drugs were planted, and both proclaim their innocence. Both are convicted and sent to prison in that country.

At one point during the loss of an appeal, the one girl (Clare Danes) calls out to the judge to please release her friend, that she (Clare) is the one who smuggled the drugs.

The wise judge says, "If you are telling the truth, then you deserve to have your request granted. Because you are guilty and your friend innocent. If you are not telling the truth, you deserve to have your request granted. Because your request is brave and noble."


Now, if Clare was guilty then she simply did what she should have done from the start. But if Clare was innocent... what do you think her friend felt if not gratitude and love? Or what do you think the parents of her friend felt - if not gratitude to Clare for her sacrifice and love for their daughter?

**

Or... do you think it is abhorrent that men in war are grateful when one of their comrades jumps on a grenade to save them?

I do not understand why you think it is abhorrent that a person be grateful to the one who laid his life down so that they and others may live?

What else should a person feel other than gratitude, humility, love?

When men and women go off to war (or perhaps fight in their own country in defense of the people there that they love), they risk their lives, and some lose their lives. They may not go into war expecting to die, but they know it is a possibility, and I am sure that there are some people who would take on a mission even knowing that it meant their death, as long as it was to protect their loved ones.

We consider such people heroes, and most are grateful to those who risk and even give their lives against an enemy that would destroy or imprison us, so that we might live, and live in freedom. (at least that is the ideal)

Well, the Adversary (the one called Satan) is an enemy. Death (Apollyon/Abaddon; the Destroyer; the King of the Abyss - which is world of the dead) is an enemy. You may not believe these things, but obviously I do, and in the context of speaking of this faith, even if just using the bible and/or christian traditions, these things are part of the conversation when discussing what Christ did, and how we should feel about that.


So yes... I am grateful. I am not sorry for it.

clownboat wrote: I believe that if there was a just and loving god out there, he would approve of my position while despise yours. If there is just the god of the Bible out there, then I would not find said god to be just or loving.

Perhaps.

But the one example we have of someone objecting to what was going to happen to Christ is when Peter objected, and Christ rebuked that objection, and the one it truly served.

clownboat wrote: If I tortured and killed one of my children for something someone else did, I venture a guess that you would not be grateful, nor would you find my actions loving or just. For this reason, I suggest a double standard is at play. If not, why can one father torture and kill a child on behalf of an innocent, while another cannot?

God did not torture and kill His Son.


Please refer also to the beginning of this post.

(and also the wages of sin is death... not torture. Man is the one who adds in the torture... so it should not be surprising that death is not enough of a punishment in his eyes... it has to be the fires of hell too... or I guess instead of death, because you wouldn't feel torture if you were dead)

Clownboat wrote: I just cannot be grateful for something I find despicable. Perhaps I'll be ruling with a god as some priestly class due to this. Just imagine if all these religions were just tests by some god concepts to see just who would be OK with what in order to feel forgiven. If that would turn out to be the case, I think my soul would be safe.

I think what you find despicable is the teaching of your former religion. I could be wrong. I do not know what the teaching of your former religion is; but it does not sound as though we are understanding what Christ and God did in the same way at all.

tam wrote: I do not know who one could disagree that we do have sickness and death in our flesh (some of us more than others)... however we explain its presence. If there was no death in our flesh... it would not get sick, get old, die.

Clownboat wrote: I googled death in our flesh and still have no idea what these words mean. I reject this concept of having death in our flesh for it being nonsensical. Perhaps an explanation would help.

Well, they're not scientific terms. But we do have cells dying in us all the time, and those cells do die: hence there is death in our flesh (and bones, and blood, etc).

tam wrote: I don't know how soon cells start to die after we are born, but eventually, the body loses the battle, and death wins.

Clownboat wrote: That would depend on which cells. You talk about death as though it is a thing. A thing in fact that we have in our bodies (death in our flesh). What is this death that invades our flesh and how do you know about it and why have you not informed the medical community?

See above.

tam wrote: So we all have this 'sickness', and it has nothing to do with what we deserve.

Clownboat wrote: So death is a sickness that invades our flesh? If it could be cured with antibiotics for example, would we live forever?

Perhaps, if possible. I think the medical community and scientists are working on prolonging our lives and stopping death. I do not think that they have the proper "antibiotic" though.


But if we were given new bodies that did not have death in them - but only Life - well then, we would be cured.

Such as the leaves of the tree of life (Christ) that are for the healing of the nations.
That is moving back into the spiritual, however.

Clownboat wrote: Once again, you highlight the dangers of listening to people whom claim to speak on behalf of god concepts. You are not immune to this.

tam wrote: I am immune to this actually... so long as I am listening to Christ and not to men.

Clownboat wrote: So long as you are listening to Christ. Unfortunately for us, you are only claiming to speak to Christ, something we have both agreed to be dangerous.

The claim is not dangerous. Listening to someone who makes that claim can be dangerous. I'm not listening to anyone who makes that claim. And nothing I hear from Christ is against love. Nothing.

tam wrote: Christ is the One who has kept me OUT of religion, and kept me from listening TO men.

Clownboat wrote: religion
noun re-li-gion i-li-jn
: the belief in a god...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

I think the readers shall decide for themselves.

Those who believe in God can be in religion, but one does not have to be in religion to believe in God.


And dictionaries are not always correct. The definitions are supplied by men. Mathematical and scientific ones should be correct (but could be in error I suppose; I am not sure) But philosophical definitions or religious ones - such as the previous definition that an atheist is one who denies the existence of God - can be incorrect.



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

[KenRU]

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Just out of curiosity, how can wiping out all living things on the entire planet (save for Noah, his family and some animals) qualify as the act of a loving entity?

If that act was done to protect the seed (those who belong to God, and through whom Christ would come) from being destroyed before they could even all be born.

So babies, children and animals all deserved to die? Either you and I dont agree on what the word loving means or you dont believe god was powerful enough to come up with a better solution than wiping out the planet.

If anyone could have gotten on the ark had they faith enough to hear and heed the warning that God was bringing a flood, as Noah heard and obeyed.

So, god warned the entire planet? Really? Please cite the relevant passage in the OT that shows this occurred. As I recall it, god just waited for man to come to him, and was disgusted that they hadnt yet.

In essence, god was impatient and threw an epic tantrum.

Drowning every other living thing on the planet seems like a pretty heinous act to me, its something that a megalomaniacal James Bond villain might do.

Loving god - Biblical Flood. These two seem contradictory to me.

Yes, I understand. Unless one knows the reason why it was necessary, or even considers that it was necessary to protect some from those who would destroy them.

Can you really envision a scenario where the entire planet deserves destruction? God just didnt smite the bad ones. He walloped the innocent, nave, babies, animals and those who never even heard of him.

This seems irreconcilable to me. Unless we admit the god of the bible is simply not as loving and powerful as we might like him to be.

I can reconcile them becuase to me, they are both fictiticous. But when I was a believer, it was something I could never reconcile completely.

For a long time I also did not know how to reconcile the two. But the truth as I have learned never shows God to be doing anything that is not out of love.

Explain to me how drowning babies can even remotely be considered an act of love?

We may not understand the details of something, or there may be an error in the writing, something was attributed to God that was natural, etc. May even be that something big happened and people were limited in what (scientific) terms they could use to describe it.

This makes me think that you do not believe the flood happened.

Do you believe the flood happened?

That's quite alot of suffering caused by god.

I have found that the suffering is never caused by God. The suffering is always caused by the actions of someone/something else.

If you believe the flood occurred, then god most certainly caused a lot of suffering. I see no believable or logical way to explain it otherwise.

Plus, we lost the unicorns : (

Maybe they just evolved into narwhals ; )

Nice one : )

Do you believe evolution occurs?

-all the best

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Dropship]

Not a test for the infant or fetus that dies.......according to most Christian theology they get a straight ticket to heaven.

So what is the point of even living in this world if we risk the rejection of Christ's salvation. Better we all die before we have the rational to understand the salvation story and possibility reject it than and get that one way stamp to heaven.

What a bizarre deal the Christian world view is......

I think you just made a great case for Christian abortions.. STRAIGHT to heaven with them. Do not pass LIFE do not collect 200 sins.

Yes but I can't claim this, the former Christian apologist and now Biblical studies professor of Iowa State, Hector Avalos is the first to bring this up that I know and he calls it "genocide for salvation" or something like that.

So not only Christian abortions but all abortions.......hell, why even have humans anymore kill them all as children or infants/fetus stage so everyone is saved.

Can't believers see the absurdity of their theology?

[PghPanther]

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Just out of curiosity, how can wiping out all living things on the entire planet (save for Noah, his family and some animals) qualify as the act of a loving entity?

...

This statement does not require GOD to be unloving or to not do such things to accomplish being a GOD of love, merely that HE does NOT love everyone as some emotionally minded but narrow thinking Christians assert, ending in the mud of inconsistency.

Some people are born condemned already and some born to be saved from condemnation based upon their prior true free will decisions. A world of those unloved by GOD, born condemned, can meet their condemnation though HE still loves those not under condemnation.

Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority of how most Christians view God, souls and sin.

Knowing (albeit very little) your take on Christianity from our previous discussions Tru, your take on Christianity does seem to be able to make some sense out of this.

-all the best

Sounds to me like some form of convoluted limited atonement preached by the Calvinist "Tulip" dogma.........yet another form of Christianity claiming absolute truth in conflict with Christians claiming Arminianism and/or Modalism is the truth.

That's some Holy Spirit those Christians have providing them "insight and the truth of scriptures".

Hell the Christian world view can't agree on any doctrine.............because its all from their own minds not some supernatural consistent truth of a "holy spirit"

[KenRU]

Noah acting in his faith saved his entire family.

Just out of curiosity, how can wiping out all living things on the entire planet (save for Noah, his family and some animals) qualify as the act of a loving entity?

...

This statement does not require GOD to be unloving or to not do such things to accomplish being a GOD of love, merely that HE does NOT love everyone as some emotionally minded but narrow thinking Christians assert, ending in the mud of inconsistency.

Some people are born condemned already and some born to be saved from condemnation based upon their prior true free will decisions. A world of those unloved by GOD, born condemned, can meet their condemnation though HE still loves those not under condemnation.

Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority of how most Christians view God, souls and sin.

Knowing (albeit very little) your take on Christianity from our previous discussions Tru, your take on Christianity does seem to be able to make some sense out of this.

-all the best

Sounds to me like some form of convoluted limited atonement preached by the Calvinist "Tulip" dogma.........yet another form of Christianity claiming absolute truth in conflict with Christians claiming Arminianism and/or Modalism is the truth.

That's some Holy Spirit those Christians have providing them "insight and the truth of scriptures".

Hell the Christian world view can't agree on any doctrine.............because its all from their own minds not some supernatural consistent truth of a "holy spirit"

Expecting internal consistancy from most religions is expecting way too much. Some maybe more so than others, but it usually requires gymnastic like logic to make sense out of all of it.

-all the best