With more truth and less calumny we observe:
I dont know "he" exists, and i dont "reject" that which is in no way evident.
You just choose to pretend to believe.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They do know He exists by the things of nature and they CHOOSE to reject Him.
And where on earth did I say anything about malicious intent?
In defense of not only Skavau but many other non-believers here, I'm not sure it's true that they do know God's truth, or that they've actually heard the Gospel.
That word "heard" has very specific meaning, as Scripture applies it in this context. To illustrate my point, concoct the impossible scenario of all the unbelievers here being present for Paul's all night sermon where somebody fell out of a balcony, died, and came back to life. Forget the miracle.
I think a different level of "hearing" may well take place in that scenario, which many here have not experienced.
Another baseless accusation with no evidence.
Do Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens think similar?
How about Joseph Stalin and Richard Dawkins?
I've explained to you already that atheists can be Objectivists, Communists, Socialists, and Capitalists.
There are even some on this VERY forum that identify themselves as Republicans.
I also find it hilarious that you accuse us of group think when all Christians are expected to think the same as well, at least by you.
How many Christians go "Jesus' sacrifice proofs God loves us" routine. Probably all of them right?
I am not an anti-believer. I have recently come to realize that, in my mind, I like that Christians have come to know the God of Abraham. I just think they are mistaken on a pretty major point, but they still desire to serve God.They are anti believers. Not non-believers. Non believers are those proverbial pygmies in the jungle metaphor.
This doesn't answer my question. I'm not so much focusing on what the word "eternal" or "aionios" mean. I am focusing primarily on what Christ meant when He said the "good" will rise to live and the "evil" will rise to be condemned. Those who rise to live will receive life and those who rise to be condemned will receive punishment. Life or Punishment. Those are the alternatives. How do you reconcile the words of Christ with your idea that everyone will rise to live and none condemned?
They are anti believers. Not non-believers. Non believers are those proverbial pygmies in the jungle metaphor.
Paul would not have tolerated the mocking and bashfest. He would have asked them to leave.
They say they have heard. They say they have rejected the Gospel.
Keep them at their word.
You do realize that you have made yourself above the Biblical God right? This runs so common in you guys.quote=Skavau;57470633I will just respond to this for now.
First of all I'm glad to see that you think eternal torture is horrendous. About time you said so.
Secondly, to contrast the potential of eternal torture with that of natural evil (a misnomer in itself) is inaccurate. We can't do much about natural disasters. We might someday have the technology to vastly alter weather conditions in our favour to prevent tornadoes but preventing atrocities such as earthquakes are impossible. We can only respond to them. This is simply not true of the 'spiritual' where eternal torture, if it did exist would be under the will of God and therefore be a moral evil. I don't distinguish between intelligent agents acting unjustly either in reality or in fantasy.
An all-powerful, all-knowing deity
allowing His child to "maturely" decide to throw himself in front of a
Mack truck that will, for ever after, be running over him doesn't add up.
I didn't reject the Gospel; I don't believe that it's true. There's a difference.
I would say that my disbelief in Christianity isn't even voluntary. It's a cognitive impossibility for me to believe in the Gospel with the information that I see now.
I was a Christian for the first 15 years of my life, and I was not happy to doubt my faith at first.
But I had to, because I couldn't keep up with the doublethink that was my belief.
I thought that it was the right thing to keep believing and that I would go to Hell if I stopped believing, but the problem was that everything in my brain was telling me that it wasn't true.
My deconversion had nothing to do with malicious rejection of God; it had everything to do with my compulsion to disbelieve in what evidence shows me to be false.
There was a stretch in time toward the end of my religious life when I would pray to God begging him to just show me some sort of miracle like he did for the people in the Bible, so that I could believe in his existence again.
Of course, everything clicked eventually and I deconverted, realizing that I didn't have to be afraid of Hell or God because they didn't exist. That was an incredible relief.
But yeah, for me, my deconversion wasn't a "rejection." It was just my frontal lobe doing its job.
Does this mean you see it as more of a restorative process rather than
merely endless torment with no corrective purpose?
If not, why would sinless people be tormented forever?
.
Originally Posted by Tergle
A far more logical response would be "I don't belive in God." And that finishes the discussion about hell. And move on to trying to fix the violence and vice of secular cities.
Do you have a point to make? Then make it.
Non believers are those proverbial pygmies in the jungle metaphor.
Paul would not have tolerated the mocking and bashfest. He would have asked them to leave.
They say they have heard. They say they have rejected the Gospel.
Keep them at their word.
I didn't reject the Gospel; I don't believe that it's true. There's a difference.
I would say that my disbelief in Christianity isn't even voluntary. It's a cognitive impossibility for me to believe in the Gospel with the information that I see now.
(After writing this post, I wanted to go back and read my posts here from 4 years ago that I made shortly after deconverting, but I suppose that the "Questions from Non Christians" forum has been closed. Too bad, it would have been pretty interesting for me.)
Oh man! You're quick.
My post earlier wasn't meant for you. My bad.
I deleted it.
I don't believe in posted speed limits either. I told the cop that but he gave me a ticket anyway. He said I rejected the truth.
I was a non believer even longer. 18-years of my life. Reality all around me forced me to see the factual nature of the Gospel. Infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teen. And then adult. Get it?
Why does hell terrify you atheists so badly? You want it gone with so many machinations.
You were a Christian at birth? At three, five or ten? When did you "become" a believer in Christ from birth to 15?
Miracles? That's it? I'd rather pray to see morality make a comeback. Music is a miracle. It has no evolutionary reason to exist and move us so. And let's face it, most music does not lead us to a sexual encounter no matter the hype that it does.
Yet you cruise Christian forums. There's in intense irony about that.
I have encountered one such person. he heard God speak to him, tell him how to save his and life and that of his family, and sought out the nearest Church for instruction. It was a journey of over a week, via road made by his machete. Not only did he understand the Gospel better than his teachers at the "local" Church, but they sent him to school to learn to be a missionary. He understood the Gospel better than his teachers there. So they sent him out as a missionary. Including to the US.
After a bit of that he got homesick and went back into the jungle.
Point taken. Assume in my scenario that they would respect the church in the setting, and keep their mocking inward.
After dialog, there is only one atheist on CF I can say has maybe really heard the Gospel, and that is mud hole, a newbie.
Other than that, there has always been major ground where they are led astray by bad teaching and other falsehood that they are better off without.
I spent 12 years holding all things Church to be false, and almost another 4 before He brought me into contact with real believers.
I truly was NOT prepared for what I would encounter!
Lol, you made a pun, how cute. Now please promise to never make that argument again; it's really pointless.
There's a difference between the English expressions "believe in" (i.e. agree with on principle) and "believe" (i.e. consider to be true).
Yeah, your point? I was just giving you exposition to my story, not trying to gain street cred.
It doesn't anymore; I don't believe in it. As for why it terrified me so badly when I was still a Christian, I don't understand why you need to ask that question.
It's about the most horrific concept that humans (or God, in your opinion) have ever dreamed up. And when you think that you might be on your way there, it gets quite distressing.
You pointed out a flawed technicality in what I said, how cute
Music could also be seen as a "side effect" of the other cognitive abilities we've developed over time.
The fact is, like all modern "miracles" Christians point out, music does not require a God to be believable.
It all goes back to the "Why doesn't god heal amputees" question - i.e. why does God refuse to ever perform miracles so supernatural that they are indistinguishable from a statistical anomaly?
Yes, the "You're an atheist but you spend time on Christianity!" argument. How cute.
Yeah, I like debating with people, and a forum full of people I disagree with makes an awfully good venue for that. Now please promise to never make that argument again; it's really pointless.
So yeah, all in all you completely missed the point of my post in favor of making puns and cute little arguments of technicality and cliché'd "Gotcha!" arguments that have been used thousands of times.
Try reading it again and actually addressing my point, which is that my deconversion was simply not a malicious rejection, but rather a cognitive process.
It had nothing to do with my desire to be sinful, but only to do with my interpretation of the evidence around me.
Leading up to my deconversion, I wanted nothing more than to be able to feel what other folks in my church felt and believe in what they did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?