- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you vote for an open atheist for national political office?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:51 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Damnation by circumstance is no different than salvation by circumstance
I agree, though I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. Many Christians vehemently argue against both.
quote:
This argument comes down to "fairness". Is it fair that people are damned because of what Adam did?
Again, it isn't about fairness. It's a matter of god's contradictory nature. He by the act of omniscient creation set up the scenario by which man would fall and need saving in the first place. It only happened because he allowed it to by his act of creation, knowing it WOULD happen.
Everything that happens to us, good or bad, is therefore directly the responsibility of God. Every soul saved is on his hands, and every soul damned is as well. Whether he "caused" Adam to sin is irrelevant.
Therefore, in the above scenario, what rationale is there for God to not only set up such a scenario but then guarantee some will be damned by the nature of their birth? After all, no child is born cognitively challenged without god allowing it.
quote:
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.
Because that's the appropriate human response to such an idea.
2
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:53 pm to The First Cut
quote:
The First Cut
Great retort. That doesn't make it untrue.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:56 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Numerical strength means we are better?
Numerical strength is one result of us being better.
quote:
I would have to say we are pretty important.
This was the point of that tangent.
quote:
Even Ohio State fans
a-hole. You're getting Natty Light.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:56 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Man I've battled off many of these atheist website claims. I've finally realized it's the sad push back of God by man. If you read the Old Testament, it's the same loop over and over and over. Technology has changed but man hasn't.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Sorry. The term you are looking for is "agnostic".
For whatever reason as you can see from their earlier post they don't like the definition of atheist and have changed it to suit themselves I suppose. Athiest is really agnostic atheism that the "majority" of atheist practice.
Hey its a big universe
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
You miss the entire point. He can either create humanity with no free will and no possibility to love or assume risk and create humanity with free will and the possibility to both love Him or reject Him. And if there is the possibility for rejection of Him He provides the means to address that rejection.
Or He can decide not to create humanity at all.
God provides the means for redemption. Man makes the decision.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
John 3:17 NKJV
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
John 3:18-21 NKJV
Or He can decide not to create humanity at all.
God provides the means for redemption. Man makes the decision.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
John 3:17 NKJV
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
John 3:18-21 NKJV
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you would like to devolve into a discussion about specific "contradictions", feel free to do so.
I don't have the time or desire to jump into that. I've done it in the past, and the picture gets a nearly equivalent response.
quote:
The claim is that the original texts were free from error.
Link those.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:59 pm to The First Cut
quote:
I've battled off
I doubt that.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Joke is on you. I don't drink alcohol so the Natty Lite is yours
Hope I can link up with you when we drive through on our way from San Antonio to Tampa next year. You are my kind of people (except for the Ohio State thing).
Hope I can link up with you when we drive through on our way from San Antonio to Tampa next year. You are my kind of people (except for the Ohio State thing).
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
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?
I don't believe the God of Christianity is evil, I have no feelings about him at all in fact. I know (as much as one can reasonably know such a thing) that the Christian idea of god cannot exist because in order for him to be, unresolvable universal paradoxes would arise and historical events we know didn't happen must have occurred. That version of God necessarily cannot exist in this reality. Even if he pulled the scientific veil over our eyes, his existence would violate basic rules of universal logic. A God could exist, the Christian God as orthodoxy defines him cannot. It is a certainty.
I'm arguing from the perspective of one who incorrectly believes in that God. Why would I serve a God who created me in his image, and by definition created my emotions and cognitive capacities, and then deals with me and all of creation in a way that is incomprehensibley vile to the senses he gave me?
In other words, if I found God's actions detestable it's only because my mind was created in a way to allow for it.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:03 pm to The First Cut
quote:
Man I've battled off many of these atheist website claims. I've finally realized it's the sad push back of God by man. If you read the Old Testament, it's the same loop over and over and over. Technology has changed but man hasn't.
Nice to see someone "get's it" Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Well would you go to an anti-science website for scientific information? These atheist sites are written out of a wealth of ignorance and disdain for spirituality. That's not a very credible source.
And yes, I researched some of the ridiculous claims on those sites and fought too many people on the OT. It's a large reason why I rarely visit that board anymore.
And yes, I researched some of the ridiculous claims on those sites and fought too many people on the OT. It's a large reason why I rarely visit that board anymore.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:04 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Joke is on you. I don't drink alcohol so the Natty Lite is yours
Fine then. You're getting well-done steak and boiled, unseasoned potatoes.
quote:
Hope I can link up with you when we drive through on our way from San Antonio to Tampa next year. You are my kind of people (except for the Ohio State thing).
Yeah, that would be cool. Might be a good checkpoint for you and Mrs. Wolfhound.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Yep, but I don't. I'm attempting to remain consistent with the Biblical view of both salvation and damnation.
I agree, though I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. Many Christians vehemently argue against both.
quote:The rationale is that in all things, God would be glorified. With the scenario you provided, He would glorify Himself and His creation would glorify Him. I assume that's what you mean: what is the point of it all?
Again, it isn't about fairness. It's a matter of god's contradictory nature. He by the act of omniscient creation set up the scenario by which man would fall and need saving in the first place. It only happened because he allowed it to by his act of creation, knowing it WOULD happen.
Everything that happens to us, good or bad, is therefore directly the responsibility of God. Every soul saved is on his hands, and every soul damned is as well. Whether he "caused" Adam to sin is irrelevant.
Therefore, in the above scenario, what rationale is there for God to not only set up such a scenario but then guarantee some will be damned by the nature of their birth? After all, no child is born cognitively challenged without god allowing it.
Whether God knew or intended or even orchestrated the fall and subsequent damnation of mankind does not remove the responsibility and thus the accountability of mankind. The entire premise that you seem to be portraying is that it is God, not man, who is accountable for the damnation of all of mankind, and thus He has to be cruel. Even if God were solely accountable and man wasn't (which isn't the case), God would not be inconsistent with His love, since He can be loving while judging mankind and He can judge mankind in spite of His love. Whether we have a choice in the circumstances we were born into or not does not negate how we react and respond to those circumstances. We don't just rebel against God, we enjoy it. We are 100% accountable for our sinfulness and subsequent damnation regardless of God's involvement.
The reason why I keep going back to fairness is because this is where it always goes when you discuss God's sovereignty in salvation and damnation. The default position by those who don't understand it is that mankind is basically good and doesn't deserve to be damned, and even if we did, God stacked the deck against us and we are damned even though we can't help ourselves. What this ignores, though, is the fact that we go to hell with a smile on our faces as we willfully and joyfully disobey God, regardless of all else.
quote:"Appropriate" here is based on a humanistic point of view. According to God, the appropriate response in all situations is to bow down and worship Him. Our sinful nature doesn't respond well to adversity, though.
Because that's the appropriate human response to such an idea.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:05 pm to The First Cut
quote:
Well would you go to an anti-science website for scientific information?
I often do, but I don't rely on it, obviously. I enjoy looking at both sides of everything.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:06 pm to Revelator
quote:
Would you vote for an open atheist for national political office?
As long as he's a Rand Paul clone or basically as close as you can get to that and is just simply someone that doesn't have a belief in god and just lives his life on his own and leaves religious people alone.
BHP and CFBR are one of those atheists here.
If he's one of those militant atheists that harasses everybody about his atheism and sues everybody and everything that shows religion, He can go frick himself.
Crusierhog and Rex are examples of those.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:09 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
He can either create humanity with no free will and no possibility to love or assume risk and create humanity with free will and the possibility to both love Him or reject Him. And if there is the possibility for rejection of Him He provides the means to address that rejection.
Irrelevant
If God is omnipotent, he KNEW his act of creation would result in most of the created suffering for eternity. And then created us anyway. This means we have only the illusion of free will as an omnipotent and omniscient being, by definition, cannot be wrong or surprised. This instantly absolves us from all responsiblity for our actions. Nothing I do, good or bad, was a real choice. Me going to heaven or hell was never a real choice.
We are all blameless, even the worst among us. Hitler is not responsible for his actions.
quote:
Or He can decide not to create humanity at all.
Which would be preferable, but this is a false dichotomy. The inability to sin does not rob us of free will (though God's omniscience would still do so). Is the inability to fly a deprivation of your free will? No, it's just something you can't do.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:13 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I've done it, too. The picture isn't as true as it seems.
I don't have the time or desire to jump into that. I've done it in the past, and the picture gets a nearly equivalent response.
quote:Seriously? It's the basic concept of biblical inerrancy. Just do a google search on it. Here's a link to the always infallible wikipedia page on Biblical inerrancy
Link those.
"Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the 'Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy', is the doctrine that the Bible 'is without error or fault in all its teaching'; or, at least, that 'Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact'.
The concept is that the original manuscripts are inerrant while the copies we have today have small scribal errors that do not change the spiritual truth as intended to be conveyed in the scriptures.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I don't believe the God of Christianity is evil, I have no feelings about him at all in fact. I know (as much as one can reasonably know such a thing) that the Christian idea of god cannot exist because in order for him to be, unresolvable universal paradoxes would arise and historical events we know didn't happen must have occurred. That version of God necessarily cannot exist in this reality. Even if he pulled the scientific veil over our eyes, his existence would violate basic rules of universal logic. A God could exist, the Christian God as orthodoxy defines him cannot. It is a certainty.
I'm arguing from the perspective of one who incorrectly believes in that God. Why would I serve a God who created me in his image, and by definition created my emotions and cognitive capacities, and then deals with me and all of creation in a way that is incomprehensibley vile to the senses he gave me?
In other words, if I found God's actions detestable it's only because my mind was created in a way to allow for it.
I read this post and I think what a loving God that he would allow us to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. If we were made to be robotic and enslaved to be anything in particular, love could not be chosen. What an awesome God we have.
It is his faith in us that makes his love so incredible - because our faith would never, ever, be strong enough for Him. His love, mercy, and grace came to us in the form of
Jesus. Wow!
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The rationale is that in all things, God would be glorified. With the scenario you provided, He would glorify Himself and His creation would glorify Him. I assume that's what you mean: what is the point of it all?
If a perfect being desires something he currently lacks, he by definition isn't perfect. A God who wants is not perfect.
quote:
We are 100% accountable for our sinfulness and subsequent damnation regardless of God's involvement.
We have no responsibility for actions we never could have prevented. Adam had no choice but to sin, because if he hadn't an omniscient being would have been wrong.
For God to be God, Adam had to sin. Anything else was an impossibility. As such, none of us can be held accountable for our actions because we have no choice.
Page 18 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News