re: Would you vote for an open atheist for national political office?

quote:

---

This is of course the only logically consistent stance, in as much as one can be logically consistent within the belief system.

The problem, as you alluded to, is following this through to its logical conclusion: Those who never hear the gospel, or those unable to comprehend it, are effectively damned by circumstance. A circumstance God had domain over.

Could God do that? Sure, he's God.

---

I don't see the problem with this. Damnation by circumstance is no different than salvation by circumstance. The outcome may be less favorable, obviously, but the requirements are the same. This argument comes down to "fairness". Is it fair that people are damned because of what Adam did? I would counter that is it fair that people are saved because of what Christ did?

Even if you throw out the federalist aspect of this, you are still left with the requirements of perfection that all men fall under that no one apart from Christ has ever been able to comply with. All people would essentially condemn themselves even if original sin wasn't something to be concerned about. Not to mention, if Adam was the perfect man, unbound in his reason and ability to choose good over evil and all he had to do was obey one command and he failed, what makes anyone think they, in their current state, would fair any better?

We don't bat an eye when one nation's leader declares war on anther nation for what their representatives do (well, we understand it logically, at least). As goes the leader, so goes the nation. That's the general principle. Yet people find it a very difficult pill to swallow when it comes to their own eternity (for good reason).

quote:

---

I'd be curious to know how the millions of Christian parents of special needs children would respond however if they knew this to be true.

---

Many would reject it, as many already do. It's a natural tendency, after all. Most Christians today think that the Biblical principle of federalism that I've tried to adequately explain is absurd because they want to believe that they are in ultimate control of their own destiny and salvation. I understand it, but I don't believe it to be true. These same people would recoil in disgust at the thought that their impaired or handicapped child could possibly die in sin and go to hell. On the other hand, there are many Christians who do believe in this concept and fervently pray for mercy from God on their children, that He would grant even the smallest seed of understanding and trust in Christ for salvation.

Have you sinned?

And the answer from a scriptural standpoint is Romans 5:12.

quote:

---

That's an opinion or are we forgetting manifest destiny and the crusades?

---

The Roman Catholic Church is not the catholic (universal) Christian Church. When you speak of the Crusades, you speak of the Roman Catholic Church and it's power struggle with the kings of that contemporary period, not the entire Christian faith.

quote:

---

A pot isn't a living being

---

True, but a grasshopper isn't a human, though it is a living being. It comes down to value and worth. Some people value a "priceless" painting or work of art over some people (there are some pretty terrible people in the world, after all). Value is subjective and our value as human beings comes from God, who created us. If He deems us unworthy based on the terms He has set forth, why can't He destroy us? We are still His creation.

quote:

---

But God would certainly be within his rights to do such a thing. The question is, why would I want to serve such a being? To avoid hell?

---

If God were God, why wouldn't you want to serve Him because of that alone? He doesn't punish on a whim and He is not capricious, so why think that God is evil because we don't live up to His standards? If God is a holy God (which justifies His need to condemn sinners) then wouldn't that be a good reason to worship and serve Him? What about the love He shows on sinners even though they don't deserve it?

quote:

---

I have no response to you beyond telling you that you are wrong based on the literal definition of the word.

---

The definition is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Put another way, a theist is one who believes in god(s), Atheist is the antithetical, i.e., one who believes there is no god.

Sorry. The term you are looking for is "agnostic".

I'm a registered Republican in the state of Florida.

Well since you won't come to me, I am coming to you. My next assignment is in Tampa.

See you next summer.

quote:

---

Well your definition of someone acting like an a-hole is very broad and open to a wide interpretation.

---

As is your definition of open contempt.

quote:

---

You might call a crack down on Muslim immigrants the act of an a-hole and I would not.

---

That is entirely different from general contempt for Islam.

quote:

---

Because the result is that any human not exposed to the story of Jesus and his offered salvation is condemned to hell through no fault of their own. That seems like a condemnation that only a vindictive and petty god would impose. Alternatively, it would be evidence of a god without the sufficient power to extend his influence to all of his created children. 

---

Sin is not accounted where there is no law.

Also, the Bible makes multiple references to those who lived before Christ being saved. They couldn't have accepted Him without a DeLorean, but they're still saved.