Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

Your level of success here appears to be commensurate with one that is relying on a fictional character in a book.

That all depends on what you perceive are my intentions in posting here.

I assure you, it is not my intention to convince you of anything or to convert you to Christianity, or even to provide a demonstration or evidence of the veracity of the Christian faith to you.

My intentions are to learn about why people are so offended at Christ so that I might better understand those who God will be sending across my path as I continue to seek to do His will in all things.

Thus far, I have learned far more than I ever thought I would and have been greatly encouraged so I would consider my work and time here to be quite rewarding, fulfilling, and an all around great success!

 

[Skavau]

You already know my answer on this but I'll repeat as you've asked (in a general sense). I am offended that you believe or that Christ believes that it is morally just for me to be permanently exiled to permanent torment for the 'crime' of being born imperfect with the predisposition (as bestowed upon me) to 'sin'. I am offended that the solution to this is for God to insist that every human being afflicted with this imposed taint to be told they must accept Jesus and repent for their sins. A mad idea that by consequence condemns billions of people to hell, a place they don't even believe exists for reasons they don't even know exist.

I am offended that God even (as you communicate) sees fit to condemn people who do actually profess an adherence towards him. That he would send Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastarians, Baha'i, whomever to eternal torment simply for incorrectly evaluating his existence is even more contemptible.

Start with that.

 

[Elioenai26]

You already know my answer on this but I'll repeat as you've asked (in a general sense). I am offended that you believe or that Christ believes that it is morally just for me to be permanently exiled to permanent torment for the 'crime' of being born imperfect with the predisposition (as bestowed upon me) to 'sin'. I am offended that the solution to this is for God to insist that every human being afflicted with this imposed taint to be told they must accept Jesus and repent for their sins. A mad idea that by consequence condemns billions of people to hell, a place they don't even believe exists for reasons they don't even know exist.

I am offended that God even (as you communicate) sees fit to condemn people who do actually profess an adherence towards him. That he would send Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastarians, Baha'i, whomever to eternal torment simply for incorrectly evaluating his existence is even more contemptible.

Start with that.

You have heard of Christ's sacrifice for your sins and you reject the offer. God can only do so much my friend. A gift can either be received or rejected.

Pride keeps you from accepting the most wonderful gift anyone could receive.....eternal life with your Creator who loved you enough to die for you.

Like it or not, it is what it is. You need a Savior. If you reject Him you will only get what you deserve.

 

[Skavau]

You have heard of Christ's sacrifice for your sins and you reject the offer.

I do not believe that my 'sins' command a sacrifice. I did not even ask for a sacrifice to be done in advance on my behalf. My 'sins' amount to general human imperfection, a trait God established upon humanity. By this consequence God is directly responsible for our sins, or rather our predisposition and tendency towards committing them. I do not accept the claim that my sins are mine alone in this context nor do I accept the claim that they are so grievous as to command nothing less than eternal torment.

In addition, my "rejection of the offer" is not just a moral rejection but that I do not believe such an offer exists. I am an atheist. To me, God is merely asserted by others and heaven and hell are merely fictional domains. To me, there is no offer only people like you who try to sell me that there is one.

God can only do so much my friend. A gift can either be received or rejected.

Under no circumstance can what God offers here be considered a gift.

Pride keeps you from accepting the most wonderful gift anyone could receive.....eternal life with your Creator who loved you enough to die for you.

No, moral conviction and skepticism keep me from accepting the "most wonderful gift". I could never in good conscience, even if I believed it accept a gift that I knew would condemn billions of innocents to eternal torment.

Like it or not, it is what it is. You need a Savior. If you reject Him you will only get what you deserve.

Sorry, no evidence has been presented that I need a "Saviour". We only have God declaring it, not establishing it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How would you know it was God revealing Himself

I might never know, but if I were convinced, I'd be convinced.

 

[Davian]

That all depends on what you perceive are my intentions in posting here.

Perceptions based on what you have posted here.

I assure you, it is not my intention to convince you of anything or to convert you to Christianity,

So those "there will be hell to pay" comments were not aimed at me?

or even to provide a demonstration or evidence of the veracity of the Christian faith to you.

Did someone else use your account to start all of those threads here, or is this what is referred to as "lying for Jesus"?

My intentions are to learn about why people are so offended at Christ so that I might better understand those who God will be sending across my path as I continue to seek to do His will in all things.

I am not, and I have not seen anyone here offended by an end-of-the-world apocalyptic preacher that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.

Perhaps you should work to better understand why people are so offended by theists that arrogantly post their assertions, without the means of establishing the veracity of their claims.

Thus far, I have learned far more than I ever thought I would and have been greatly encouraged so I would consider my work and time here to be quite rewarding, fulfilling, and an all around great success!

How disingenuous.

 

[Davian]

You have heard of Christ's sacrifice for your sins and you reject the offer.

I've heard stories, but no offers that could be verified as genuine.

God can only do so much my friend. A gift can either be received or rejected.

You might think that an omniscient omnipotent deity could put a bit more effort into it. Just sayin'.

Pride keeps you from accepting the most wonderful gift anyone could receive.....eternal life with your Creator who loved you enough to die for you.

So, God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself.

He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he’d be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself.

Did I get that straight? What did God give up exactly?

Like it or not, it is what it is. You need a Savior.

Hypothetically, still.

If you reject Him you will only get what you deserve.

So there is flamethrower aimed at me, and if the trigger gets pulled, I deserve it.

Keep going, Elio!



Credit for additional text

 

[Elioenai26]

Keep going, Elio!

I will, and thank you for your encouragement.

 

[Davian]

I will, and thank you for your encouragement.

So, I got it straight, didn't I?

 

[Elioenai26]

So, I got it straight, didn't I?

You encourage me to know why it is that I believe what I believe. And I thank you.

 

[bricklayer]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

Your question arises the distinction, even when there is no difference, between truth and proof. Even if everything listed above were true, in that they truly and actually happened, those truths are not of themselves proof of anything. Truth is only proof to the extent that it is tested and proved.

As contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by a process wherein doubt is removed by testing. It is not so much that an idea is proved to us as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved; what remains is what we are left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on, and so on.

One must test everything to prove anything.

I am left to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. I've grown in faith, belief, certainty, etc though a thirty four year process wherein doubt is removed by testing. Among the things I am left to believe is that enlightenment comes always with repentance. That enlightenment/repentance process is often referred to as the sanctification process.

The answer to the gist of the OP's queries is THE SANCTIFICATION PROCESS. Not as glamorous as some one thing, but that's the answer none the less; it's a process.

Note: A process is a prescribed sequence of changes. (note the word prescribed)

 

[Elioenai26]

Your question arises the distinction, even when there is no difference, between truth and proof. Even if everything listed above were true, in that they truely and actually happened, those truths are not of themselves proof of anything. Truth is only proof to the extent that it is tested and proved.

As contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by a process wherein doubt is removed by testing. It is not so much that an idea is proved to us as it is all of the other idea considered have been disproved; what remains is what we are left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on, and so on.

Reasoning is the ontological sequencing of ideas. It is the organizing of ideas apart from their material, spatial or temporal being. As contingent beings, we ontologically sequence a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.That is to say that we organize one idea at a time.

Our contingent-reasoning is quite distinguishable from necessary-reasoning. A necessary being ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions. That is to say that a necessary being organizes all ideas all at once.

One of the most significant differences between our ideas and God's ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

Ahh, very well said!

 

[Davian]

You encourage me to know why it is that I believe what I believe. And I thank you.

Will you carry this evasive style of yours into your "debate" style?

 

[Elioenai26]

Will you carry this evasive style of yours into your "debate" style?

In debate, I cannot ignore impertinent posts such as yours because every post in a debate will be treated as pertinent.

 

[HitchSlap]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

I suppose a god as Christians describe him, would know exactly what it would take, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Elioenai26]

I suppose a god as Christians describe him, would know exactly what it would take,

Yes He would....

and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

People could still choose not to recognize His existence even after they were presented with evidence, which if given under different circumstances, would constitute it as being undeniable.

Are you saying that you would acknowledge His existence if given good reason to?

You see what we are talking about is one's subjective interpretation of evidence. If a person is an anti-theist, then they are going to have pretty powerful emotional reasons that may color or affect the way they view evidence for God's existence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes He would....



People could still choose not to recognize His existence even after they were presented with evidence, which if given under different circumstances, would constitute it as being undeniable.

Are you saying that you would acknowledge His existence if given good reason to?

You see what we are talking about is one's subjective interpretation of evidence. If a person is an anti-theist, then they are going to have pretty powerful emotional reasons that may color or affect the way they view evidence for God's existence.

What we're talking about is the ability of an omni-being knowing exactly what it would take, without exception.

 

[Elioenai26]

What we're talking about is the ability of an omni-being knowing exactly what it would take, without exception.

Yes......

We are talking about God.....

I will take a shot in the dark and guess you mean to say that since some people are unconvinced that God exists, that that is evidence that He does not exist????

Is that your view?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes......

We are talking about God.....

I will take a shot in the dark and guess you mean to say that since some people are unconvinced that God exists, that that is evidence that He does not exist????

Is that your view?

My view is that, if your god exists, why has she gone to such great lengths to hide her existence. Secondly, if your god exists and wanted me to believe, as I have clearly stated before, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Elioenai26]

My view is that, if your god exists, why has she gone to such great lengths to hide her existence.

This statement assumes that God has indeed hidden Himself. I would disagree. I would maintain that God has made it possible, at least for you, to know He exists. You have access to a Bible I am sure. That is one piece of evidence.

Secondly, if your god exists and wanted me to believe, as I have clearly stated before, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe this conversation is the means by which God will reveal Himself to you. As long as that is possible, your reasoning fails....