free will ?

[Lemming3k]

YOU WILL NOT BE GOOD IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT HIM

Highlighted enough for you?
Thats what you said in reference to god, if we dont accept god we can not be good so are therefore evil, therefore your saying all athiests are evil despite some doing more good than some christians. Your statement implies if your not a christian your a bad person, so can i ask what you think of gay christians? as gays are not tolerated in the bible, so do gay christians go to heaven or hell? im sure that poses a dilemma for your god.

If the person has received enough evidence to believe in God and choses to disbelieve, then it would be sinful. However, for disbelief to be mortaly sinful, the person must be consciencly aware of it. Typically, though, disbelief is not caused by disbelief alone but by other sins.

Are these not your standards? If not why post this? What do YOU consider enough EVIDENCE to believe in god?

 

[okinrus]

Highlighted enough for you?

Acceptance of God is more than just believing that he exists. Perhaps the atheist is confusing God's grace with something else. I'm not in a position to decide, but the possibility is there.

Thats what you said in reference to god, if we dont accept god we can not be good so are therefore evil, therefore your saying all athiests are evil despite some doing more good than some christians.

Never say someone says unless if they do say so. If it's only inferred then say so. But as I said the words, I know what I mean by them.

Your statement implies if your not a christian your a bad person, so can i ask what you think of gay christians? as gays are not tolerated in the bible, so do gay christians go to heaven or hell? im sure that poses a dilemma for your god.

As I said before, I cannot judge whether someone goes to heaven or hell. But even if I did, hell seems better to me than nonexistence. Gay Christians are no different than any other Christian who have their own sin problems.

 

[Lemming3k]

Never say someone says unless if they do say so. If it's only inferred then say so. But as I said the words, I know what I mean by them.

well im afraid you DID say it, heres YOUR quote with a key word highlighted.

you will NOT be good, unless you accept him

The 'him' you refered to was god. So i shall rephrase your statement WITHOUT changing its meaning.
'Athiests can NOT be good because they dont accept god.'
I have not changed the meaning of the statement only its wording.
Now are you goin to tell me you did not say it? perhaps you didnt mean this but it IS what YOU said.

Acceptance of God is more than just believing that he exists. Perhaps the atheist is confusing God's grace with something else. I'm not in a position to decide, but the possibility is there.

What are you waffling on about? Clearly the 1st step to accepting him is believing he exists, and what atheist are you talking about? Im making the statement some athiests do more good in the world than some christians, athiests dont believe in god, therefore dont/cant accept him, and any that do good do so because thats the people they are.
I know you dont decide who gets into heaven im just curious, being gay is a sin, so being a gay christian is a dilemma with heaven and hell, i wanted to hear your view, i also wanted to know what you consider enough evidence for god?

 

[okinrus]

The 'him' you refered to was god. So i shall rephrase your statement WITHOUT changing its meaning.

God is a totality of good, virtue, and love along with existent. Someone who does not accept God will not be good or loving, but someone can be loving without accepting His existence since this one of rational thought. For example, babies do not know that God exists, yet they are indeed good, which reminds me of why God said "it was good" after each creation sequence. As I mentioned before, one cannot reject that which he cannot see. If an atheist truly did not see anything, then I'm not too sure how they could reject God. But the truth is that lack of faith is almost never completely a truthful investigation, but is rather often underpinned by sins, such as pride, that obscure one's sight.

What are you waffling on about? Clearly the 1st step to accepting him is believing he exists, and what atheist are you talking about?

No, the first step is not seeing that he exists in some sort of objective way. The atheist mentioned is a hypothetical one.

I know you dont decide who gets into heaven im just curious, being gay is a sin, so being a gay christian is a dilemma with heaven and hell

Christians commit sin is all your basically saying here. Scripturally there's no reason to differentiate between hatred, lust, or homosexuality. They are all able to send to someone to hell.

i wanted to hear your view, i also wanted to know what you consider enough evidence for god?

It depends. Homosexuality, the preference to the opposite sex, is not a sin within of itself. For the homosexual act to be judged as a grave act, the participant must know that it is morally wrong, at least at the conscience level. It's a grave and sad thing, but there are other sins such as lust and hatred that can be just as deadly. Ultimately, all of us will be given a choice to either be perfectly healed by God or not.

i also wanted to know what you consider enough evidence for god?

Only God can decide here.

 

[Lemming3k]

I like your thinking, i can sin my whole life and if im wrong and god does exist he'll give me a chance to be healed and live in heaven, i cant lose can i? Though i knew that anyway, since we shall all have our sins forgiven so how can anyone possably end up in hell if it all exists? So for now i'll go on not believing and sinning, i can always change my mind if im wrong. And in levitcus it is said that gay people should be stoned to death, i find it hard to believe a christian would practice homosexuality and be niave enough not to know its morally wrong in the bible. God is also not very loving in certian passages in the bible.

God is a totality of good, virtue, and love along with existent. Someone who does not accept God will not be good or loving, but someone can be loving without accepting His existence since this one of rational thought. For example, babies do not know that God exists, yet they are indeed good, which reminds me of why God said "it was good" after each creation sequence. As I mentioned before, one cannot reject that which he cannot see. If an atheist truly did not see anything, then I'm not too sure how they could reject God. But the truth is that lack of faith is almost never completely a truthful investigation, but is rather often underpinned by sins, such as pride, that obscure one's sight.

You say athiests cant reject what they cant see, but how can they accept it? Therefore they still cant be good according to the bible.

 

[okinrus]

I like your thinking, i can sin my whole life and if im wrong and god does exist he'll give me a chance to be healed and live in heaven, i cant lose can i?

Yes, if you could remain somehow ignorant of your conscience. An example of this would be those in mental institutions, but not the preferred state of living. Yet if you choose to remain ignorant of your conscience, such as getting drunk to perform some action, then that action still remains culpable. Living in sin, though, is much worst than being free from sin. There are no long term benefits to sin either in this life or the next.

And in levitcus it is said that gay people should be stoned to death, i find it hard to believe a christian would practice homosexuality and be niave enough not to know its morally wrong in the bible. God is also not very loving in certian passages in the bible.

Not all readers of that passage believe it refers to gays, but this is beyond the point. There are many Christians who suffer from same-sex attraction and other sinful habits. Most of us have suffered these things at one time or another. We know that we are condemned by the law, everyone of us, but we also can be saved like the prostitute that would have "lawfully" been stone.

You say athiests cant reject what they cant see, but how can they accept it? Therefore they still cant be good according to the bible.

As I mentioned before, God is the source of all good. It still possible for the atheist to see and do good, yet not say that it is from God.

 

[mario]

I really have a hard time understanding you, okinrus. Very philosophical to say the least.

It seems god can be both outside of time and inside time. God has interacted quite often with us humans throughout history. He walked with adam and eve in the garden of eden...he came dowm to earth to destroy cities...he talked to moses just a few feet away from him as a burning bush...he created the 10 commandments as moses watched. But I can't see it really mattering how it affects our free choice as you said something like it would put a constraint on it if he made a prediction while being in a certain time period.

When you said that "no one accepts what he can't see" (page 2)...then how can a believer believe in a god that he cannot see? Also when you said that the first step in accepting god is not looking at him in some objective way but rather through faith, isnt the end result for both is that god truly exists as an entity? Now whether or not you want to follow him is a different matter.

 

[mario]

If god is the source of all good then who created evil? Before god created everything there was no good or evil in the universe. Evil just doesn't pop into existence out of nowhere. Everything evil that we can do had to be first created for us to choose it. Satan was evil because he used his free will and felt greed and pride and selfishness. But he could not feel these evil things if god did not first create them for satan to feel. So I ask you, how can a perfectly "good" god create evil?

 

[Jenyar]

Evil could have been a side-product of good - like darkness is inevitable in the absence of light. The Bible seems to say that before creation everything was chaos, and out of that God created order. So without God, everything just returns to chaos. Not that chaos was necesarily "evil", but evil in the Bible means anything that threatens life with God. Poison is only poisonous when you drink it. That's definitely not something God created, because it goes against what He created.

 

[Jenyar]

I like your thinking, i can sin my whole life and if im wrong and god does exist he'll give me a chance to be healed and live in heaven, i cant lose can i? Though i knew that anyway, since we shall all have our sins forgiven so how can anyone possably end up in hell if it all exists? So for now i'll go on not believing and sinning, i can always change my mind if im wrong.

You'll only end up being exposed as a hypocrite, and considering what Jesus thought of hypocrites, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action.

 

[Lemming3k]

I agree with marco that god must have created evil aswel as good, and i would consider him to be both especially according to the bible, but i consider i havnt had enough evidence to believe in a god, of any religion, and sins may have no real long term purpose but alcohol is quite nice so long as u dont drink to much. I try to do good aswel though, and i do it for other people or to feel better about myself, it does feel good to do good, i dont attribute any of it to god, likewise i dont attribute my evil to him, i never will because i dont believe, i wonder sometimes if only athiests have free will, as religious people spend all their time trying not to commit sins. As for being a hypocrite, i wont know til i die, and it wouldnt really be hypocritical, just i'd have been proven wrong and would be forced to accept the truth. Like i say the truth to me for now is a lack of proof/evidence to the existence of god, and i stand by that until im proved otherwise, we all need to believe something, i believe in being happy now for there may be nothing later.

 

[okinrus]

When you said that "no one accepts what he can't see" (page 2)...then how can a believer believe in a god that he cannot see?

It seems that we see God but perhaps not totally. While it's true that Jesus told Philp something like "How can you say that you have not seen the Father?" our sight of him is not as clear as it will be in heaven. Perhaps we God at some places but our imperfections hide what what we see?

Also when you said that the first step in accepting god is not looking at him in some objective way but rather through faith, isnt the end result for both is that god truly exists as an entity? Now whether or not you want to follow him is a different matter.

I think most people want to follow God before they have convinced themselves that he has existed.

It's somewhat incorrect to say that God created evil(the hebrew word for evil in the Old Testament can also refer to national disasters like in Amos) since evil almost always refers to something opposed to God.

Satan was evil because he used his free will and felt greed and pride and selfishness. But he could not feel these evil things if god did not first create them for satan to feel. So I ask you, how can a perfectly "good" god create evil?

I don't believe creating the potential for evil is the same as creating evil. But it seems that potential for evil is created as soon as God gives a creature a command that he or she could disobey. If evil means the absence of God, then we cannot blame God for allowing his creatures to be free from his grace.

 

[alain]

okinrus - "There are many Christians who suffer from same-sex attraction and other sinful habits."

yeah, well screw you too
i have met many gay people, and they are on average alot nicer people then normal people. I have met alot of Christians, some of them are very nice, others are more like you

the reason that the bible discourages people being Gay, is that the churches wanted (in BC times and up to 1400 ish AD) people to have alot of children, more children means a better economy and a much more powerful military, the church didnt care about morality, merely practicality. However, modern Christians are under the false impression that people used to have morals, and thus still think being gay is wrong. You are living at least 600 years in the past, we now have a problem with TOO MANY people, so being gay is a good thing

 

[okinrus]

yeah, well screw you too
i have met many gay people, and they are on average alot nicer people then normal people. I have met alot of Christians, some of them are very nice, others are more like you

I don't quite get what your point is. I did not say that statement excluding myself. You are attempting to trap me and then claim that I'm unnice. The niceness of some gays will not make the gay act not sinful. This is more or less comparable to a drug addict or any other sin.

the reason that the bible discourages people being Gay, is that the churches wanted (in BC times and up to 1400 ish AD) people to have alot of children, more children means a better economy and a much more powerful military, the church didnt care about morality, merely practicality.

Perhaps you should realize that the Church did not exist until 36AD.

However, modern Christians are under the false impression that people used to have morals, and thus still think being gay is wrong. You are living at least 600 years in the past, we now have a problem with TOO MANY people, so being gay is a good thing

To believe that ancient cultures did not have a conscience is absurd. Most countries do not have a problem with too many people, but lack of proper infrastructure to feed their people.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

Repentance is accepting God.

But no, according to the message I was replying to you CAN'T accept God... he's left me, I can't accept him back. He's gotta come back. Repenting won't do squat, especially won't encourage him to come back... *burns bibles*

 

[okinrus]

But no, according to the message I was replying to you CAN'T accept God... he's left me, I can't accept him back. He's gotta come back. Repenting won't do squat, especially won't encourage him to come back... *burns bibles*

Your misconstruing what I said. I did not say that repentence was not good, but alone, one's repentence does no good. God loves us first, even before we love Him.

he's left me, I can't accept him back. He's gotta come back.

Well, I'll put it you this way. God will show himself to you and me more completely when the time is opportune. He will knock on the door, and you must open it. I also question how you are able to determine if God left you? If God was with you, how do you know what not having God feels like? If God was always not with you, how would you know that you are without God, never being with God?

 

[alain]

"Perhaps you should realize that the Church did not exist until 36AD."
soz, slightly change my dates then but it still has the same point

there is NOTHING wrong with being gay, apart from the possible depopulation that it can cause.
do you have any reason of your own for not liking gays? or just, "cause God told me so"

"To believe that ancient cultures did not have a conscience is absurd. Most countries do not have a problem with too many people, but lack of proper infrastructure to feed their people."

Some ancient cultures did have morals, such as the tribe that invented the phrase about enemies being friends we havent yet met. However, this tribe was wiped out. With less people, you wouldnt need as good an infrastructure, so either increasing infrastucture or lowering population would help

 

[okinrus]

there is NOTHING wrong with being gay, apart from the possible depopulation that it can cause. do you have any reason of your own for not liking gays? or just, "cause God told me so"

I do not like sin, but there is no reason not to like someone who is gay.

Some ancient cultures did have morals, such as the tribe that invented the phrase about enemies being friends we havent yet met. However, this tribe was wiped out. With less people, you wouldnt need as good an infrastructure, so either increasing infrastucture or lowering population would help

No, in many in those countries it is clear that the warlords, dictators, war, and just plain stupid decisions caused the lack of infrastructure.

 

[mario]

>>I don't believe creating the potential for evil is the same as creating evil. But it seems that potential for evil is created as soon as God gives a creature a command that he or she could disobey. If evil means the absence of God, then we cannot blame God for allowing his creatures to be free from his grace<<

So god is an all-or-nothing kind of guy. If you're not with him then you're against him. Not much tolerance there. Why can't god say "here I am, I offer great rewards, but if you're not interested then best of luck...you're on your own". Why can't there be a neutral state? Why is it automatically evil just because we have a different opinion than gods'? Being bad and hurtful is one thing (like those terrorists in spain or wherever) but if we just live a normal, peaceful life without believing in god then why can't that be somewhere in the middle (neutral) between good and evil? A switzerland if you will.

So in the end, god's gift of free will still creates evil by giving us a choice other than what he wants us to do. Therefiore god is still responsible for evil.

 

[mario]

If god is total goodness then...

1) Why did god inflict incredible emotional torment on abraham by commanding him to kill his son as a test of his faith? Then at the last second, as abrahan was going insane with grief as he was about to kill his son, god says "wait! haha I was only joking, don't kill your son".

2) God has a bet with the devil that job will still be faithful to god even after god inflicts one hell after another on job. God wracks job's body with pain and disease and ignores his cries of mercy just to amuse the devil. God SHOULD have inflicted pain on the devil as a bet with job to see if the devil will come around and worship god. But no, he inflicts unspeakable pain on his child instead. And for what? A bet...of all things.

If we humans acted like that to our children we would be in jail and the children's aid society would take away our kids.

But god can get away with this behaviour because he has deemed himself infallable. He has no one to answer to.