God and Sin

[Andrewn]

I doubt God exists. However, the Bible states, in Romans 1:19:22, that I know He exists anyways, and that 'sin' is getting in the way. So this must be what I am doing

It doesn't say that. It says that the evidence is in front of your eyes .

Hold a pen 3 inches over a table top, then let go. But before letting go, make yourself believe the pen will not land on top of the table. If you cannot alter your belief, then you must reconcile that belief cannot be controlled. Lack of belief in a deity, or belief in a deity, is not willed. People follow evidence to conform to their conclusion(s).

I believe that according to the law of gravity the pen will land on the table. I cannot make myself believe that the pen will be suspended in mid-air. I can change my belief if new evidence becomes available, for example, if someone invents pens that fly.

And no, free will is not merely the ability to make a choice. If it were, you would have 'free will' whether or not to give a bank robber your wallet, when (s)he points a gun at your face and demands it from you.

Actually, I can choose to not give him the wallet. I will have to live or die based on my choice. But I do have a choice. Every action has consequences.

Hence, my entire aforementioned thread 'Purveyor of Confusion.'

Is this thread in the same Apologetics forum?

All will sin, believers and unbelievers. But the ones whom possess the incorrect beliefs, go to hell.

We haven't talked about the ones who possess incorrect beliefs about God. Our conversation ahas been about the ones who do not believe God exists.

Hence, the tenets for salvation are based upon an amoral construct, as we cannot control what we believe. You cannot simply will a belief in an invisible agent.

No, if you can't see evidence for God, you cannot simply will a belief in Him.

Are you stating that a young child, whom starves their entire life, is abused, is rapped, and is murdered, is also being touched by "God's love and His gift to us"?

Free will is a bummer. A lot of people do very evil things a God lets them do it. But everyone will be dealt with according to God's justice and love in the end. If no human being can help the boy, at least one day the poor boy will be comforted.

I found a good video which may shed quite a bit of light on this question. Be careful, it's rather comprehensive - (please watch past the first 2 minutes, as you might want to shut it off):

I watched the video. Interesting to see how atheists think of theists.

 

[cvanwey]

It doesn't say that. It says that the evidence is in front of your eyes .

I forgot to include the Verse directly before. I interpret these Verses as stating the following...

- Anyone whom states there is not a God, is merely suppressing what they truly know, or are lying to themselves, deep down.

- It's common knowledge that, when you look around, it was all created by YHWH. And if you say it isn't, please refer to the reason directly above.

- We all know God exists. And even if you truly doubt He does, this is only because sin is clouding your judgement.

Now compare what I just stated above, which appears to be fallacious logic, against the Verses below. And please also keep in mind, you were the one whom stated 'logic' is universal.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

I believe that according to the law of gravity the pen will land on the table. I cannot make myself believe that the pen will be suspended in mid-air. I can change my belief if new evidence becomes available, for example, if someone invents pens that fly.

Bingo! Now we are on the same page. Thank you.

Now please re-read my prior response:

If you cannot alter your belief, then you must reconcile that belief cannot be controlled. Lack of belief in a deity, or belief in a deity, is not willed. People follow evidence to conform to their conclusion(s).

And yet, many Verses seem to condemn, based upon a belief. --- Something you cannot control.

If I do not believe in YHWH, it is because the evidence I see, does not support this belief, for me. And yet, God is going to condemn me anyways? And furthermore, call me a liar, or tell me I'm just being clouded by sin (i.e. Romans 1:18-22). This appears to be faulty reasoning?

Actually, I can choose to not give him the wallet. I will have to live or die based on my choice. But I do have a choice. Every action has consequences.

Again, the mere ability to choose, is not what constitutes "FREE will". If duress, severe/unwanted consequences are implied, coercion, or an ultimatum is imposed, you are not under the blanket of "free will" - by definition. You are instead merely making a dichotomous choice -- (comply, to avoid harm/punishment [or] choose the opposite for spite/pride/other).

I explained to another, a while back, that 'free will' would be more-so like going to an ice cream parlor. You can decide to do one of the following... Order ice cream, order a shake instead, order both, decide to leave and not order anything, other other other. The worker is not going to press you to make a specific decision, or instead threaten you suffer unwanted consequence.

As I also stated prior, taxation and civil law kind of falls under the same realm. Comply to the given 'law' or be prepared to 'pay'. These are compulsory applications. Christianity looks to follow down the same exact line as taxation and civil law. This is not really free will. They are all compulsory, when applied.

Is this thread in the same Apologetics forum?

Purveyor of Confusion

Most, whom responded here, swear by belief to save. I know this does not matter, in regards to what IS true. However, it does seem to lend credence against the notion that this view is in the minority

We haven't talked about the ones who possess incorrect beliefs about God. Our conversation ahas been about the ones who do not believe God exists.

I mean, the ones whom believe god does not exist, are sent to hell, even if they sin less than believers numerically. Morals are not the deciding factor, it's belief. And belief is not controlled.

Seems to defy the LoL?

No, if you can't see evidence for God, you cannot simply will a belief in Him.

- Belief is not a 'moral' construct. If I do not believe you, is this a sin? No. It means your provided evidence did not convince me. Please reference my much earlier example about president Trump.

- The Bible seems to suggest that if I do not believe, I am either lying, or am plagued with sin.

Please note, any book can state the exact same thing, and surely be just as unfalifiable

Free will is a bummer. A lot of people do very evil things a God lets them do it. But everyone will be dealt with according to God's justice and love in the end. If no human being can help the boy, at least one day the poor boy will be comforted.

Wow! You chose the completely unfalsifiable response, completely sheltered from criticism or investigation. Please remember what you stated:

"I find it difficult to ignore God's love in the creation and for his daily gifts to us."

I watched the video. Interesting to see how atheists think of theists.

Nice blanket generalization. Tell me what part you object to in detail, and we can discuss

 

[Andrewn]

Now compare what I just stated above, which appears to be fallacious logic, against the Verses below. And please also keep in mind, you were the one whom stated 'logic' is universal.

It's actually interesting to compare the verses in Rom 1 to the video clip about evolution of monotheism. Don't they agree that monotheism could evolve through natural evolution? Of course, the video claims that that is a trick of evolution.

Bingo! Now we are on the same page. Thank you. Now please re-read my prior response: If you cannot alter your belief, then you must reconcile that belief cannot be controlled. Lack of belief in a deity, or belief in a deity, is not willed. People follow evidence to conform to their conclusion(s).

Yes, you're right that people should follow evidence. I agree.

And yet, many Verses seem to condemn, based upon a belief. --- Something you cannot control. If I do not believe in YHWH, it is because the evidence I see, does not support this belief, for me. And yet, God is going to condemn me anyways? And furthermore, call me a liar, or tell me I'm just being clouded by sin (i.e. Romans 1:18-22). This appears to be faulty reasoning?

I understand your dilemma better than before. You're an honest seeker: neither a hypocrite who can say that he believes when he doesn't, nor a hard hearted atheist who rejects God right off the bat. Try reading the article about evidence for God I quoted in previous post. It's not that long. And keep seeking. Mat 7 says:

7 "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will
find. Knock, and it will be opened for you.
8 For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks
finds. To him who knocks it will be opened.

Again, the mere ability to choose, is not what constitutes "FREE will". If duress, severe/unwanted consequences are implied, coercion, or an ultimatum is imposed, you are not under the blanket of "free will" - by definition. You are instead merely making a dichotomous choice -- (comply, to avoid harm/punishment [or] choose the opposite for spite/pride/other).

This is a huge topic in philosophy and religion and gets into the difference between free will and determinism, etc. I remember getting into discussion like these when I was younger and the conclusion was always that we do have free will within the limits of our genetics and circumstances. We do not have absolute free will. Think of all the mexicans that would like to come to the US and are being kept in refugee camps. Or think of Christians around the world that would like to practice their religion peacefully and are being killed and persecuted.

I explained to another, a while back, that 'free will' would be more-so like going to an ice cream parlor. You can decide to do one of the following... Order ice cream, order a shake instead, order both, decide to leave and not order anything, other other other. The worker is not going to press you to make a specific decision, or instead threaten you suffer unwanted consequence.

Even in an ice cream parlor I cannot order a flavor that they do not carry and I cannot order a hot dog. I do have a choice but only within the limits of availability.

As I also stated prior, taxation and civil law kind of falls under the same realm. Comply to the given 'law' or be prepared to 'pay'. These are compulsory applications. Christianity looks to follow down the same exact line as taxation and civil law. This is not really free will. They are all compulsory, when applied.

As I said, we do have a choice but will suffer the consequences. You say that that is not a true free choice and that a free choice is to be able to reject God without consequences. I don't see that possibility available in the Bible.

Purveyor of Confusion

Most, whom responded here, swear by belief to save. I know this does not matter, in regards to what IS true. However, it does seem to lend credence against the notion that this view is in the minority

I'll check that thread and get back to you.

I mean, the ones whom believe god does not exist, are sent to hell, even if they sin less than believers numerically. Morals are not the deciding factor, it's belief. And belief is not controlled. Seems to defy the LoL?

"Those who die in unbelief die in all their sin—they are unforgiven liars, murderers, adulterers, etc. (Revelation 21:8). Those who trust in Christ for their salvation do not die in sin; they die in Christ, with all sins forgiven. We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1); without faith, we are condemned (John 3:18). Forgiveness is received through faith in Christ and comes with the promise of an eternity in heaven; lack of faith keeps us unforgiven and consigned to an eternity in hell."

- Belief is not a 'moral' construct. If I do not believe you, is this a sin? No. It means your provided evidence did not convince me. Please reference my much earlier example about president Trump. - The Bible seems to suggest that if I do not believe, I am either lying, or am plagued with sin.

When God offers to forgive a man’s sin if he believes, logic dictates that his response cannot be, “No, I refuse to believe in You, but forgive my sins anyway.” Forgiveness is a conditional offer: if the required condition is met (faith), then the promised result occurs (forgiveness). Faith in Christ is how people rightly respond to God’s offer of salvation.

On the logic of requiring belief: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

Nice blanket generalization. Tell me what part you object to in detail, and we can discuss

I like that, in the video, belief in God comes naturally through evolution. Of course I would add a role for revelation, just like I add a role for creation to the beginning of the universe and the process of evolution.

 

[cvanwey]

It's actually interesting to compare the verses in Rom 1 to the video clip about evolution of monotheism. Don't they agree that monotheism could evolve through natural evolution? Of course, the video claims that that is a trick of evolution.

If the video is true, then the passage in Romans 1 makes perfect sense. Wouldn't you agree?

Telling the reader, 'it's plain to see God', 'if you deny God, you are merely suppressing', and/or etc, look to be manifestations of fallacious reasoning.

Meaning, 'what else could it be, but God?' Which is shifting the burden of proof, or the 'burden of proof fallacy'; just for starters...

Yes, you're right that people should follow evidence. I agree.

Great. And it goes even further than this... You pretty much have no choice but to follow evidence. You believe, I do not. Some piece(s) of evidence 'forced' your hand in belief. You cannot simply will unbelief, without proper presentation or cause. The opposite holds true for me. I never received such evidence apparently. I wanted to believe for decades, because I hoped/thought somehow it must be true. However, once I truly investigated for myself, I realized there looked to be little/no evidence to support the assertions for YHWH. All prior notions/hopes/etc were mere blind credulity in action, for me

And now, if Christianity should happen to be true, God is going to condemn me apparently, according to Scripture.

Getting back to the OP, 'God and sin', seems rather strange that God would favor not being true to yourself, by ultimately dismissing the notion of the Christian God, VS, professing to a deity that you cannot believe in anyways?

I understand your dilemma better than before. You're an honest seeker: neither a hypocrite who can say that he believes when he doesn't, nor a hard hearted atheist who rejects God right off the bat. Try reading the article about evidence for God I quoted in previous post. It's not that long. And keep seeking. Mat 7 says:

7 "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will
find. Knock, and it will be opened for you.
8 For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks
finds. To him who knocks it will be opened.

I kind of did. I've seen these arguments already. I find none of them convincing. Is there one which 'converted' you specifically? I doubt it. I have a feeling your belief stems, not from presented theistic arguments, but instead from 'personal experience'? Am I close?

This is a huge topic in philosophy and religion and gets into the difference between free will and determinism, etc. I remember getting into discussion like these when I was younger and the conclusion was always that we do have free will within the limits of our genetics and circumstances. We do not have absolute free will. Think of all the mexicans that would like to come to the US and are being kept in refugee camps. Or think of Christians around the world that would like to practice their religion peacefully and are being killed and persecuted.

Even in an ice cream parlor I cannot order a flavor that they do not carry and I cannot order a hot dog. I do have a choice but only within the limits of availability.

I agree with much of what you are saying here. But this response still misses my point about Christianity. God offers a strict dichotomy. With me = bliss, not with me = complete suckage. And sense we've established that belief cannot be willed, all atheists stand NO chance, even if their 'deeds' to God look to surpass some Christian's deeds? A truly bazaar gauge of judgement? And God is the sole chooser of whom goes, and whom does not; again, according to Verse.

Now compare this to the ice cream parlor analogy. Sure, I may not be able to order a hot dog, but I could leave, not order ice cream after all, and go get one instead -- without a coercive pressed offer to order ice cream, or else.

God's offer is compulsory, like taxation. This is why I keep stating Christianity greatly resembles taxation and civil law.

As I said, we do have a choice but will suffer the consequences. You say that that is not a true free choice and that a free choice is to be able to reject God without consequences. I don't see that possibility available in the Bible.

"Those who die in unbelief die in all their sin—they are unforgiven liars, murderers, adulterers, etc. (Revelation 21:8). Those who trust in Christ for their salvation do not die in sin; they die in Christ, with all sins forgiven. We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1); without faith, we are condemned (John 3:18). Forgiveness is received through faith in Christ and comes with the promise of an eternity in heaven; lack of faith keeps us unforgiven and consigned to an eternity in hell."

The kicker in all this, is that atheists do not even have (A) choice. They do not believe. Hence, game over, no matter what, apparently. You cannot will the opposite belief.

This is why I asked you, much earlier... Can an atheist go to heaven? The answer is likely NO. Hence, 'morality' need not matter. Which is weird, since some Verses in the Bible seem to assert that 'judgement' hinges upon deeds, and not faith/belief? Cough cough Matthew 25:31-46.

When God offers to forgive a man’s sin if he believes, logic dictates that his response cannot be, “No, I refuse to believe in You, but forgive my sins anyway.” Forgiveness is a conditional offer: if the required condition is met (faith), then the promised result occurs (forgiveness). Faith in Christ is how people rightly respond to God’s offer of salvation.

On the logic of requiring belief: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

This is my beef here. The Bible tells it's readers that the ones who 'reject' the notion of God are merely suppressing their true feelings. That we are either liars, or are in deep denial. Well, I find this assertion patently false.

I earnestly cannot get myself to belief He exists. I wanted to for decades. But after studying the presented evidence, looks like I was wrong in hoping. But, for some reason, if I am wrong, God is going to punish me for something, for which I have no control. Which-is-to-mean, following the evidence where it lead me, and concluding there was no God at the end of it all.

Such a God will label me not worthy, and condemn me, presumably eternally, for something I cannot control, belief.

disbelief = sin??????????????????

I like that, in the video, belief in God comes naturally through evolution. Of course I would add a role for revelation, just like I add a role for creation to the beginning of the universe and the process of evolution.

Is there anything in the video you outright reject, or wish to discuss further?

 

[Andrewn]

Purveyor of Confusion

I thought this thread has gone on for too long until I looked at your other thread . You have 41 pages there, a total of 819 posts! Is there anything that your perspective that changed based on that discussion? It would be nice to hear your honest assessment and conclusions.

I'll get to your recent post later.

 

[Andrewn]

You pretty much have no choice but to follow evidence. You believe, I do not. Some piece(s) of evidence 'forced' your hand in belief. You cannot simply will unbelief, without proper presentation or cause. The opposite holds true for me. I never received such evidence apparently. I wanted to believe for decades, because I hoped/thought somehow it must be true. However, once I truly investigated for myself, I realized there looked to be little/no evidence to support the assertions for YHWH. All prior notions/hopes/etc were mere blind credulity in action, for me And now, if Christianity should happen to be true, God is going to condemn me apparently, according to Scripture.

You've won the battle of words. You were able to push me, and yourself, into a corner. You convinced me that you couldn't find proof for God. But what really counts is winning the war. You have to either a) convince Jesus to exempt you of judgment based on "Irresistible Ignorance." or b) believe that there could be a second chance after gaining more information after death. c) believe in nihilism or reincarnation. Or d) continue look for a proof for God in books and in experience.

If you cannot believe in God, bec there is no satisfactory evidence for you, and you cannot believe in 1 of the 4 possibilities, you will probably live the rest of your earthly life in mental torture.

Getting back to the OP, 'God and sin', seems rather strange that God would favor not being true to yourself, by ultimately dismissing the notion of the Christian God, VS, professing to a deity that you cannot believe in anyways?

Oh, no, no. God would not accept such hypocrisy. Demons profess belief in God but they cannot be saved.

Hence, 'morality' need not matter. Which is weird, since some Verses in the Bible seem to assert that 'judgement' hinges upon deeds, and not faith/belief? Cough cough Matthew 25:31-46.

Morality matters in determining our place within the realm of heaven. We've talked about hell / LoF.

Is there anything in the video you outright reject, or wish to discuss further?

I watched the video a 2nd time bec I found it really interesting. The part that doesn't make sense to me is when it classifies faith as a type I error, the accidental attribution of subjective agency to lifeless unthinking objects, which is evolutionary an overcompensation for the possibility of committing the more detrimental type II error, the failure to attribute agency onto an actual agent. This basically means that instead of considering other people as objects it is more socially beneficial to consider all objects as gods!!

I can see that the 2 types of error are opposite to each other. But I can't see why we must choose one or the other. Do atheists have some degree of autism / Asperger's dis as the ending of the video suggests?

 

[cvanwey]

I thought this thread has gone on for too long until I looked at your other thread . You have 41 pages there, a total of 819 posts! Is there anything that your perspective that changed based on that discussion? It would be nice to hear your honest assessment and conclusions.

I'll get to your recent post later.

The point of this thread, was to demonstrate that God's message does not look to be clear. If I was still a believer, I would hope for a more cohesive and unified message for salvation. But, after reading the Bible, it looks as though we do not get this...? And I'm still waiting for someone to take a stab at the very last post, repeated three times

 

[cvanwey]

You've won the battle of words. You were able to push me, and yourself, into a corner. You convinced me that you couldn't find proof for God. But what really counts is winning the war.

Was it this statement/question, which finally tipped the final scales?

I kind of did - (read the provided article). I've seen these arguments already. I find none of them convincing. Is there one which 'converted' you specifically? I doubt it. I have a feeling your belief stems, not from presented theistic arguments, but instead from 'personal experience'? Am I close?

You have to either a) convince Jesus to exempt you of judgment based on "Irresistible Ignorance."

As a former believer, and have already reading the Bible, I would not assume this conclusion could possibly happen; even if I wanted it to be. God asserts that I do know deep down, and that am without excuse. God essentially labels all skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc.; liars - [in some capacity]. God labels me a 'sinner', unworthy of saving.

or b) believe that there could be a second chance after gaining more information after death.

Again, after reading the Bible, I would not be able to get myself to believe this conclusion. Death looks to clearly provide the final demarcation between eternal bliss (or) torment.

c) believe in nihilism or reincarnation.

Or how about what I have currently concluded... I do not know, nor claim to even have a clue what happens after natural death. But after thoroughly studying Christianity, it's likely this set of assertions is not what happens - (based upon lack in presented evidence and logic alone).?.?

However, this does not rule out many other alternative conclusions -- a differing asserted god or gods, polytheism, deism, pantheism, eternal material universe, etc etc etc...

Or d) continue look for a proof for God in books and in experience.

I was a Christian for >30 years. I prayed for God's contact in all of that time, in line with many Verses in Scripture. Nothing. I now give (you) my set of plausible conclusions, as a take-away:

a) God does not exist, and the ones whom claim contact are mistaken. b) God is contacting me, but I am either too stubborn to listen, or am too plagued with sin to hear Him. c) In my recent years of exploration/debate, hope that some new theist comes along and presents some new argument, which shatters my 'world'. d) 'Hope' that, if YHWH is actually real, does not adhere to what is written in the pages of this apparent solely man-made Book, and that God does not send people of doubt to a place of torment for eternity. e) Await YHWH Himself to contact me in a way which appears detectable.

If you cannot believe in God, bec there is no satisfactory evidence for you, and you cannot believe in 1 of the 4 possibilities, you will probably live the rest of your earthly life in mental torture.

For the Bible readers whom posit this conclusion as a take-away, would likely be because they will have had to try and 'de-program' the threats, for which Jesus Himself either introduced or reinforced -- hell! And even if you continue to argue that hell is not real, God seems to have no problem introducing the concept, and leaving it somewhat ambiguous; which looks irresponsible for such a serious thread or claim.

Oh, no, no. God would not accept such hypocrisy. Demons profess belief in God but they cannot be saved.

According to this Book, earnest doubters are places into the same realm as these so-called demons. Why? Because God tells us skeptics that we are instead liars and/or blocked by sin

Morality matters in determining our place within the realm of heaven. We've talked about hell / LoF.

If Christianity IS true, morality does not matter. Or, you have to ignore the Verses which state only the believers ascend to heaven, while the unbelievers do not. Do we need to start over here?

I watched the video a 2nd time bec I found it really interesting. The part that doesn't make sense to me is when it classifies faith as a type I error, the accidental attribution of subjective agency to lifeless unthinking objects, which is evolutionary an overcompensation for the possibility of committing the more detrimental type II error, the failure to attribute agency onto an actual agent. This basically means that instead of considering other people as objects it is more socially beneficial to consider all objects as gods!!

I can see that the 2 types of error are opposite to each other. But I can't see why we must choose one or the other. Do atheists have some degree of autism / Asperger's dis as the ending of the video suggests?

Funny you should mention this... Maybe this explanation will shed some light.

It's 15k years ago. You are walking down a dirt path, with high/dense brush on both sides of the tight trail. You hear a rustle. Do you?

a) think it is the wind, or some other benign disturbance?
b) brace yourself for the plausibility that it is a predator?

The ones whom opted for option a), are out of here. Most instead presume option b). This is why we most/all apply intentional agency, sometimes as a false alarm. Evolution has weeded out the ones which don't.

 

[Andrewn]

Was it this statement/question, which finally tipped the final scales?

I kind of did - (read the provided article). I've seen these arguments already. I find none of them convincing. Is there one which 'converted' you specifically? I doubt it. I have a feeling your belief stems, not from presented theistic arguments, but instead from 'personal experience'? Am I close?

Yes.

As a former believer, and have already reading the Bible, I would not assume this conclusion could possibly happen; even if I wanted it to be. God asserts that I do know deep down, and that am without excuse. God essentially labels all skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc.; liars - [in some capacity]. God labels me a 'sinner', unworthy of saving.

Yes.

I now give (you) my set of plausible conclusions, as a take-away: a) God does not exist, and the ones whom claim contact are mistaken.

This is similar to my "c) believe in nihilism or reincarnation."

d) 'Hope' that, if YHWH is actually real, does not adhere to what is written in the pages of this apparent solely man-made Book, and that God does not send people of doubt to a place of torment for eternity.

This is similar to my "b) believe that there could be a second chance after gaining more information after death."

b) God is contacting me, but I am either too stubborn to listen, or am too plagued with sin to hear Him. c) In my recent years of exploration/debate, hope that some new theist comes along and presents some new argument, which shatters my 'world'. e) Await YHWH Himself to contact me in a way which appears detectable.

These are variations of my "d) continue look for a proof for God in books and in experience," which is really the responsible thing to do.

For the Bible readers whom posit this conclusion as a take-away, would likely be because they will have had to try and 'de-program' the threats, for which Jesus Himself either introduced or reinforced -- hell! And even if you continue to argue that hell is not real, God seems to have no problem introducing the concept, and leaving it somewhat ambiguous; which looks irresponsible for such a serious thread or claim.

I didn't say hell is not real, I said it is not literal. We only talked about hell / lof, which takes place after resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There is also the spirit prison / hades, which takes place immediately after death.

According to this Book, earnest doubters are places into the same realm as these so-called demons. Why? Because God tells us skeptics that we are instead liars and/or blocked by sin

Check this new thread, it may provide some insight about your point.

Is God doubt-tolerant?

If Christianity IS true, morality does not matter. Or, you have to ignore the Verses which state only the believers ascend to heaven, while the unbelievers do not. Do we need to start over here?

"Sincerity will only get someone so far, then it must face reality. No matter how sincere someone may be about being able to fly by frantically flapping their arms, their sincerity will not keep them in the air. Besides, if someone is actively believing something that is not true and, as a result, is implicitly if not explicitly rejecting God, it seems odd for God to welcome such a person into heaven. Sincerity, then, is not enough. One also has to believe what is true.

"Like the man who approached Jesus and used the word “good,” perhaps without giving it much thought, we too need to be careful how we use and define our terms. As Jesus answered, “No one is good – except God alone” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Do all “good” people go to heaven? Since no one is good as defined by God, the answer is, “No.” Those who enter heaven do so not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of God’s grace as bestowed by Jesus Christ. We can’t work our way to heaven or claim to be without sin (1 John 1:8). Instead, we must humbly submit to God, turn from our wrong behavior, and turn to Christ for salvation."

You hear a rustle. Do you? a) think it is the wind, or some other benign disturbance? b) brace yourself for the plausibility that it is a predator? The ones whom opted for option a), are out of here. Most instead presume option b).

Excellent example. One need to be on the safe side and assume it is a predator until proven otherwise. Do we similarly need to assume God created the universe until proven otherwise?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes.

Then for you, discussing the topic of 'sin', and why it is illogical, using the LOL, likely has absolutely no bearing as to whether or not you view your God as logical If I was to somehow logically demonstrate that such a scenario is completely irrational, you would likely not care, and chalk it up to our 'sinful nature' anyways?

Yes.

So in essence, you too think I am (either/and/or) a liar or diluted with sin? And that there exists no true skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc? And that the term' unbeliever' is merely secret code for sinner/rebellion/liar?

These are variations of my "d) continue look for a proof for God in books and in experience," which is really the responsible thing to do.

If in 30+ years, God will not answer the call of an earnest prayer request, for my discernible verification in His mere existence, than WHAT exactly DOES the Verses Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23 adhere to logically?

Seems as though God either a) wants not to contact me, with me knowing about it. Or, b) maybe there exists no God there, in the first place. --- Because unless you can give me clear criteria as to what the prayer Verses actually mean, then we are in a weird realm of pure guess work... Using the LOL, as you have repeatedly mentioned prior, what is more reasonable to conclude; between a) and b)?

I didn't say hell is not real, I said it is not literal. We only talked about hell / lof, which takes place after resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There is also the spirit prison / hades, which takes place immediately after death.

I'm aware. You eluded to the notion that no one might be in hell. Which is really no different anyways. And furthermore, I'm aware of your current position. That there exists differing levels. But is a 'high up' level, in a concentration camp, really much 'better'?

Check this new thread, it may provide some insight about your point.

Is God doubt-tolerant?

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-god-doubt-tolerant.8172459/

I'll take a gander later Is there any specific bullet point(s) you care to discuss from this provided link?

"Sincerity will only get someone so far, then it must face reality. No matter how sincere someone may be about being able to fly by frantically flapping their arms, their sincerity will not keep them in the air. Besides, if someone is actively believing something that is not true and, as a result, is implicitly if not explicitly rejecting God, it seems odd for God to welcome such a person into heaven. Sincerity, then, is not enough. One also has to believe what is true.

"Like the man who approached Jesus and used the word “good,” perhaps without giving it much thought, we too need to be careful how we use and define our terms. As Jesus answered, “No one is good – except God alone” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Do all “good” people go to heaven? Since no one is good as defined by God, the answer is, “No.” Those who enter heaven do so not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of God’s grace as bestowed by Jesus Christ. We can’t work our way to heaven or claim to be without sin (1 John 1:8). Instead, we must humbly submit to God, turn from our wrong behavior, and turn to Christ for salvation."

Nothing here changes what I have been saying prior. Christianity appears less about 'morals', and more about worship or submission to an agent. According to this agent, we are all filthy sinners. The demarcation looks to be in following a believed upon agent. And I trust we need not rehash how belief is not a choice?

As I also stated prior, using the LoL, it would be illogical for an atheist to 'submit' to an agent for which they do not believe exists. Hence, the entire premise of confessing/repenting/worshiping need not apply logically.

And speaking of 'good', I trust you are also familiar with the Euthephro dilemma? In this case, if God exists here, it looks as though the "whatever God decides to ascribe as good", would be the resulting outcome within this presented false dilemma

Excellent example.

Thank you!

One need to be on the safe side and assume it is a predator until proven otherwise. Do we similarly need to assume God created the universe until proven otherwise?

Well, as the video suggests.... Most/all ascribe to 'intentional agency', from time to time, even atheists. It is up to us, if we wish, to determine whether or not these 'alarms' are either true or false alarms?

It makes sense that most assert a God, according to the video. But then Pandora's box quickly gets opened....

EVEN IF there exists an agent "out there", which of these claims of contact are attributes to the false pretense of 'intentional agency', and which ones are true? Most have to be counterfeit, since there are claims to billions of them. How do we go about determining which ones aren't counterfeit?

This goes right back to the very beginning of your last response. --- "personal experiences"

 

[Andrewn]

Then for you, discussing the topic of 'sin', and why it is illogical, using the LOL, likely has absolutely no bearing as to whether or not you view your God as logical If I was to somehow logically demonstrate that such a scenario is completely irrational, you would likely not care, and chalk it up to our 'sinful nature' anyways?

I don't believe in the "sin nature" concept. The word 'nature' implies some sort of determinism. The word "sin" has so many different meanings in the Bible ranging from any mistake or failure in life to a transgression of the natural law of dharma or the moral commandments of God to the feeling of guilt to the submission to the power of Satan / the power of Sin. So, at the very least, we all have failures and shortcomings. But even without religion, there is some balance with the superego, which plays the critical and moralizing role. So, why is the topic of 'sin' illogical? How is such a scenario completely irrational?

So in essence, you too think I am (either/and/or) a liar or diluted with sin? And that there exists no true skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc? And that the term' unbeliever' is merely secret code for sinner/rebellion/liar?

Oh, no, I don't believe that at all. I've always seen you as an honest moral seeker unable to believe in things that don't make sense at all. To you the available data are just insufficient. I'd love for Jesus to show you himself.

If in 30+ years, God will not answer the call of an earnest prayer request, for my discernible verification in His mere existence, than WHAT exactly DOES the Verses Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23 adhere to logically? Seems as though God either a) wants not to contact me, with me knowing about it. Or, b) maybe there exists no God there, in the first place. --- Because unless you can give me clear criteria as to what the prayer Verses actually mean, then we are in a weird realm of pure guess work... Using the LOL, as you have repeatedly mentioned prior, what is more reasonable to conclude; between a) and b)?

I'd have to say (a). I believe He will answer those prayers. Sometimes He wants us to wait.

1Ti 2:4 He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

And furthermore, I'm aware of your current position. That there exists differing levels. But is a 'high up' level, in a concentration camp, really much 'better'?

It would only be better if there is information about God being provided to the souls in the spirit prison / hades with a possibility of their progression to heaven. But this is pure speculation with no biblical support. The way it stands, I think you've got the biblical view exactly right.

I'll take a gander later Is there any specific bullet point(s) you care to discuss from this provided link?

I had hoped in the beginning of that thread. Until now, I haven't seen anything useful there, either.

Nothing here changes what I have been saying prior. Christianity appears less about 'morals', and more about worship or submission to an agent. According to this agent, we are all filthy sinners. The demarcation looks to be in following a believed upon agent. And I trust we need not rehash how belief is not a choice? As I also stated prior, using the LoL, it would be illogical for an atheist to 'submit' to an agent for which they do not believe exists. Hence, the entire premise of confessing/repenting/worshiping need not apply logically.

No, we should not believe in something illogical.

I've been thinking of the notion that "Christianity appears less about morals." I have to confess that this appears to be correct and perhaps many Christians will agree with it. But it rubs me the wrong way.

The way I see it is that the accumulated sins of all people gave the law of sin and death special powers. The evil serpent, if you will, became a huge Dragon that kept humanity under the power of Sin. Morality is necessary to defeat that power and escape from death. But the way to escape is not through our individual morality. This is too weak to make a dent in the collective evil. We need all cumulative morality of all human beings. Does this seem far-fetched to you?

And speaking of 'good', I trust you are also familiar with the Euthephro dilemma? In this case, if God exists here, it looks as though the "whatever God decides to ascribe as good", would be the resulting outcome within this presented false dilemma

Actually, I wasn't familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma until you brought it up. I think everything I've written in this thread supports the first horn of the dilemma "God commands it bec it is right." This is, of course, keeping in mind that eternal moral standards are dependent on God. Actually, I'd even say that the 3rd view that considers it a "false dilemma," in fact supports the 1st horn of the dilemma. This is how you find St Thomas Aquinas listed as supporting both the 1st and the 3d views. It is worth noting, as I would have expected, that Luther and Calvin support the 2nd horn of the dilemma.

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

EVEN IF there exists an agent "out there", which of these claims of contact are attributes to the false pretense of 'intentional agency', and which ones are true? Most have to be counterfeit, since there are claims to billions of them. How do we go about determining which ones aren't counterfeit?

Perhaps we don't need to get into this now. Do we?

 

[cvanwey]

I don't believe in the "sin nature" concept.

Though stating 'sinful nature' might be a paraphrase of sorts, does this mean you have a direct beef with the assertion made by the writers of the Bible (i.e.) Romans 1:18-22?

The word 'nature' implies some sort of determinism.

I would likely agree here.

The word "sin" has so many different meanings in the Bible ranging from any mistake or failure in life to a transgression of the natural law of dharma or the moral commandments of God to the feeling of guilt to the submission to the power of Satan / the power of Sin. So, at the very least, we all have failures and shortcomings. But even without religion, there is some balance with the superego, which plays the critical and moralizing role.

I would like to simplify things here. Would you agree, that the word 'sin' could be categorized as 'anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character'?

So, why is the topic of 'sin' illogical? How is such a scenario completely irrational?

I feel you may have started to agree with me here, in stating below:

"I've been thinking of the notion that "Christianity appears less about morals." I have to confess that this appears to be correct and perhaps many Christians will agree with it. But it rubs me the wrong way."

I'll answer this below, as appropriate.

But as for why I see the Christian version of 'sin' illogical? I see 'belief' as an amoral construct. The Bible seems to state God wishes to press belief as a moral construct, rather than an amoral one. And furthermore, God might eternally punish those whom do not believe the correct set of tenets. And furthermore, as stated prior, the numerical number of actions against 'God' seems to be irrelevant, in regards to salvation. Salvation (begins) with belief, which might lead to repentance, confession, and worship.

A mass child murderer could repent in earnest, and be saved. A doubtful peace corps worker could end up in a concentration camp. 'Sin' itself looks not to be a factor. Except that 'sin' to God, is disbelief????

Oh, no, I don't believe that at all. I've always seen you as an honest moral seeker unable to believe in things that don't make sense at all. To you the available data are just insufficient. I'd love for Jesus to show you himself.

Great. Then what is [your] take-away, with Romans 1:18-22?

I'd have to say (a). I believe He will answer those prayers. Sometimes He wants us to wait.

Your position holds that God wished not to answer my repeated calls, in over three decades. But instead, will someday answer, in a way I will acknowledge, as an unbeliever? Using the LoL, and reading the Bible's Verses about prayer alone, does selection a) fit?

It would only be better if there is information about God being provided to the souls in the spirit prison / hades with a possibility of their progression to heaven. But this is pure speculation with no biblical support. The way it stands, I think you've got the biblical view exactly right.

So heaven is like the military or a corporate position? You can earn or climb your way up the ranks?

Your response above is another shinning example, which polarizes my other expressed topic "Purveyor of Confusion". God seems to 'care' enough to mention the likes of the existence of 'hell'. But then cares not to explain how one goes there, and what goes on there. This appears to be irresponsible? And furthermore, leaves it's many readers confused and bewildered; about a rather 'major' topic.

It would be like your boss at work telling you, 'do this, or you'll be truly sorry beyond comprehension!" And when you attempt to inquire further, (s)he walks away, never to look back or engage further.

I had hoped in the beginning of that thread. Until now, I haven't seen anything useful there, either.

Sometimes, threads do not go where one would like

No, we should not believe in something illogical.

I've been thinking of the notion that "Christianity appears less about morals." I have to confess that this appears to be correct and perhaps many Christians will agree with it. But it rubs me the wrong way.

We look to be on the same page here. But as I also have to tell myself. Just because I don't like something, does not mean it can't be true. In being earnest with myself, I must follow the evidence, where ever it leads me. IF Christianity is true, 'sin' is almost an irrelevant construct. However, God considered 'disbelief' a sin, as it would be illogical to worship an agent for which you do not believe.

I guess the next question logical becomes.... And no, it is not a new one....

Why does God require our worship?

The way I see it is that the accumulated sins of all people gave the law of sin and death special powers. The evil serpent, if you will, became a huge Dragon that kept humanity under the power of Sin. Morality is necessary to defeat that power and escape from death. But the way to escape is not through our individual morality. This is too weak to make a dent in the collective evil. We need all cumulative morality of all human beings. Does this seem far-fetched to you?

Yes

Actually, I wasn't familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma until you brought it up. I think everything I've written in this thread supports the first horn of the dilemma "God commands it bec it is right." This is, of course, keeping in mind that eternal moral standards are dependent on God. Actually, I'd even say that the 3rd view that considers it a "false dilemma," in fact supports the 1st horn of the dilemma. This is how you find St Thomas Aquinas listed as supporting both the 1st and the 3d views. It is worth noting, as I would have expected, that Luther and Calvin support the 2nd horn of the dilemma.

Granted, it has been an 'unsolvable' and highly debated topic in philosophy for centuries. In my particular case, it circles us directly back to post #264. God is both the ruler maker, and as well as the rule enforcer. Without getting technical, here's the gist:

1) Whatever God decides IS 'good'
2) God does something because it IS 'good'

Option 1) implies 'might makes right'

Option 2) demonstrates that 'good' already has it's own standard, which does not require "God's" input; as 'good' can be determines without Him.

I'll leave it here for now. But it surely is a fun topic to argue/debate to no end Especially when the concept of God is merely an ethereal concept, at best.

Perhaps we don't need to get into this now. Do we?

Well, depends....? Do you want to cut to the chase, or do you wish to continue discussing many topics, which will likely not sway our beliefs one way or another; perpetually?

 

[Andrewn]

Though stating 'sinful nature' might be a paraphrase of sorts, does this mean you have a direct beef with the assertion made by the writers of the Bible (i.e.) Romans 1:18-22?

The "sinful nature" is not mentioned in that passage or anywhere else. In fact, for a lot of Pagans, Rom 1:18-22 is not the case at all but rather we read:

Rom 2:14 So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts either accuse or even excuse them 16 on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

I would like to simplify things here. Would you agree, that the word 'sin' could be categorized as 'anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character'?

Your statement raises the question, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

So, no a complex issue cannot be simplified this way. There are 4 distinct definitions of sin that I presented in the previous message and one has to think what it means in every particular sentence.

But as for why I see the Christian version of 'sin' illogical? I see 'belief' as an amoral construct. The Bible seems to state God wishes to press belief as a moral construct, rather than an amoral one. And furthermore, God might eternally punish those whom do not believe the correct set of tenets. And furthermore, as stated prior, the numerical number of actions against 'God' seems to be irrelevant, in regards to salvation. Salvation (begins) with belief, which might lead to repentance, confession, and worship.

It is clear from statements like the following, and there are large numbers of them, that morality is paramount.

Mat 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way
you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Your question raises an issue that is very hotly debated both in scientific and religious circles. We don't have to complicate the subject by trying to decide whether unbelief is amoral. It should be sufficient to say that it is a failure, a mistake, or that at least this is how Christianity views it.

 

[Andrewn]

A mass child murderer could repent in earnest, and be saved. A doubtful peace corps worker could end up in a concentration camp. 'Sin' itself looks not to be a factor. Except that 'sin' to God, is disbelief????

Thank God that I have a chance to repent. Probably not every believer will be completely pure when they die. While other Christians reject the Catholic notion of Purgatory, many believe in a process of purification. "Christians may also improve in holiness after death during the middle state before the final judgment." Leonel L. Mitchell (1930-2012) offers this rationale for prayers for the dead: "No one is ready at the time of death to enter into life in the nearer presence of God without substantial growth precisely in love, knowledge, and service; and the prayer also recognizes that God will provide what is necessary for us to enter that state. This growth will presumably be between death and resurrection."

The Greek Orthodox also expressed a similar sentiment. I'm not saying that this is a biblical doctrine. I'm only saying that God is both loving and righteous. If you remember the repentant thief on the cross, Jesus told him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." And in the parable of the workers, the employer paid the same amount to those who worked for only 1 hour. I just submit to the wisdom of God.

Your position holds that God wished not to answer my repeated calls, in over three decades. But instead, will someday answer, in a way I will acknowledge, as an unbeliever? Using the LoL, and reading the Bible's Verses about prayer alone, does selection a) fit?

I'd say yes to both questions.

Your response above is another shinning example, which polarizes my other expressed topic "Purveyor of Confusion". God seems to 'care' enough to mention the likes of the existence of 'hell'. But then cares not to explain how one goes there, and what goes on there. This appears to be irresponsible? And furthermore, leaves it's many readers confused and bewildered; about a rather 'major' topic.

It would be like your boss at work telling you, 'do this, or you'll be truly sorry beyond comprehension!" And when you attempt to inquire further, (s)he walks away, never to look back or engage further.

You give good word pictures. God, and your boss, do not describe the consequences. It's also like a mother calling her daughter, "Mary Jane." Mary knows that she's in trouble when her mother says, "Mary Jane." But she doesn't know what kind of trouble. One thing she can be sure of, is that her mother will not kill her. Of course, there are abusive parents. But I believe in God's love and righteousness.

Mat 7:9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

I guess the next question logical becomes.... And no, it is not a new one.... Why does God require our worship?

If God really required worship He would have forced everyone to worship Him. I think God loves people and hopes that they love Him in return.

When Jesus was asked about the most important commandment, he made it very simple for us when he said, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” Then he added, “The second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31).

I know you'll say, "Love the Lord or else." But I think about it as giving people the freedom to reject Him, which they exercise all the time.

Without getting technical, here's the gist:

1) Whatever God decides IS 'good'
2) God does something because it IS 'good'

Option 1) implies 'might makes right'

Option 2) demonstrates that 'good' already has it's own standard, which does not require "God's" input; as 'good' can be determines without Him.

Without believing in God, the Buddha came up with the Noble Eightfold Path. I think this is support of option (2), which is also the 1st horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma. But I accept that God himself created the cosmic law that Buddha and others were able to recognize. At the fullness of time, God himself took flesh to save humanity from the power of sin and give us immortality.

I'll leave it here for now. But it surely is a fun topic to argue/debate to no end Especially when the concept of God is merely an ethereal concept, at best.

I don't know if you can believe in the 1st horn of the dilemma. Buddha believed in a universal law of dharma that leads to suffering without believing in a creator God.

Well, depends....? Do you want to cut to the chase, or do you wish to continue discussing many topics, which will likely not sway our beliefs one way or another; perpetually?

It's certainly been fun and got me to understand aspects that I hadn't thought about before. But perpetually is a very long time .

 

[cvanwey]

The "sinful nature" is not mentioned in that passage or anywhere else. In fact, for a lot of Pagans, Rom 1:18-22 is not the case at all but rather we read:

Rom 2:14 So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts either accuse or even excuse them 16 on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

This is why I used the word 'paraphrased' Romans 1:18-22 uses keynote terms/phrases, such as: "suppress the truth", "God has made it plain to them", and "have been clearly seen". Seems to suggest that all humans, whom are not openly professed believers, are lumped into this category?

As for Romans 2:14-16, looks to slightly confuse or conflict. Rom 1 and Rom 2 look to contradict one another; as the Verses in Rom 2 suggests some are genuinely ignorant, while Rom 1 suggests that all whom do not openly profess, simply suppress.

Your statement raises the question, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

So, no a complex issue cannot be simplified this way. There are 4 distinct definitions of sin that I presented in the previous message and one has to think what it means in every particular sentence.

Regardless of categories or distinctions, sin looks to be "anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character". We can test this, by simply applying what I have provided, with the 10 Commandments....

It is clear from statements like the following, and there are large numbers of them, that morality is paramount.

Mat 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way
you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Your question raises an issue that is very hotly debated both in scientific and religious circles. We don't have to complicate the subject by trying to decide whether unbelief is amoral. It should be sufficient to say that it is a failure, a mistake, or that at least this is how Christianity views it.

Brushing this topic under the rug could be a grave and dyer mistake. If we are to adhere to Verses, such as John 3:16-18 or Mark 16:15-16 or Romans 10:9-10 or Acts 16:31 etc., then it looks abundantly clear that to believe, looks to be a paramount topic for salvation. We are only speaking about the eternity of your soul here. Unbelief looks to be a grave sin. To sidestep this topic, could merely be ignoring many Verses in Scripture, to instead only favor others. Let's not self-label ourselves a 'cafeteria Christian'

Thus, I ask you again, is unbelief a sin? Can you control what you believe?

And furthermore, getting back to my prior response, for which I do not feel was truly addressed.... Which of the two looks to have a better chance of reaching Heaven???

a) A mass murdering rapist, whom earnestly professes to Christ prior to execution.
b) A life long peace corps worker, and philanthropist, whom disbelieves/denies the existence of a creator?

Then, in earnest, please tell me, do 'morals' really matter?

 

[cvanwey]

Thank God that I have a chance to repent. Probably not every believer will be completely pure when they die. While other Christians reject the Catholic notion of Purgatory, many believe in a process of purification. "Christians may also improve in holiness after death during the middle state before the final judgment." Leonel L. Mitchell (1930-2012) offers this rationale for prayers for the dead: "No one is ready at the time of death to enter into life in the nearer presence of God without substantial growth precisely in love, knowledge, and service; and the prayer also recognizes that God will provide what is necessary for us to enter that state. This growth will presumably be between death and resurrection."

The Greek Orthodox also expressed a similar sentiment. I'm not saying that this is a biblical doctrine. I'm only saying that God is both loving and righteous. If you remember the repentant thief on the cross, Jesus told him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." And in the parable of the workers, the employer paid the same amount to those who worked for only 1 hour. I just submit to the wisdom of God.

I was brought up Catholic, and then later went non-denominational. I'm fairly familiar with this concept. Depending on how you answer my prior post, (at the bottom of post #315), is whether or not I will need to address this response.

But just as a preemptive observation, looks as though God hates all sin. According to God, every human is a sinner, right up to the point of natural death. Case/point, every human lies. In essence, we are breaking the Commandments daily, most likely. According to God, we are all filthy and unworthy of salvation. This is why God cloned Himself, to create a perfect sacrifice/offering to Himself. And anyone whom does not accept this 'offering' is condemned.

Furthermore, your 'repentive thief' example shed evens more light as to how 'morals' are irrelevant.

It does not matter what this thief did prior, only his confession and worship. The other one on the cross may be going to hell for 'lesser' crimes; like worshiping the wrong god????

I'd say yes to both questions.

Please tell me how your response does not violate logic, in some capacity?

God presents many prayer passages, as a promise.

Even if you state that God is not a 'slot machine', or that God will not grant the wishes of the selfish, or you state that God answers on His terms; WHAT prayers DOES God actually answer, if He chooses not to answer the call of an earnest Christian, for a two-way dialogue? And furthermore, cares to ignore such requests for decades?

You give good word pictures. God, and your boss, do not describe the consequences. It's also like a mother calling her daughter, "Mary Jane." Mary knows that she's in trouble when her mother says, "Mary Jane." But she doesn't know what kind of trouble. One thing she can be sure of, is that her mother will not kill her. Of course, there are abusive parents. But I believe in God's love and righteousness.

Mat 7:9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Thank you for the compliment.

However, I am not satisfied with your response. God gives hints of what is to happen to the "unbelievers", (or) the 'unchosen'. Let's look at two professed Christians. One swears by a works based salvation. The other, swears by faith based salvation. One of them is likely incorrect. They both also read the many passages about hell, as described in the NT. They both don't want to go there.

God raises the topic, which is a 'huge' one for them. But cares not to elaborate WHY? "Oh, BTW, hell exists, it's really really REALLY bad, and some of you will go there; ta ta." I find this irresponsible. ---> No clarification, no explanation, no true criteria, and is also left vague; for many to contemplate, debate, and for many to also threaten the other ones; for which they feel are not worthy of God's favor. This still does not even compare to being fired by your boss, or getting grounded by your parents, does it???

If God really required worship He would have forced everyone to worship Him. I think God loves people and hopes that they love Him in return.

When Jesus was asked about the most important commandment, he made it very simple for us when he said, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” Then he added, “The second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31).

I know you'll say, "Love the Lord or else." But I think about it as giving people the freedom to reject Him, which they exercise all the time.

Then we are right back to "what is 'free will' "? I can use your exact same argument(s), above in bold red, for taxation. Case/point:

If the U.S. really wanted it's citizens to pay taxes, the U.S would force everyone to pay taxes.

The answer is... The law is compulsory, and is presented to all humans in the U.S. Yes. "Pay, or else." This is coercive, or an ultimatum. Sure, you have the 'freedom' to reject, but prepare to accept the one and only alternative consequence; fines and/or jail time.

Thus, I ask again, why does God require our worship?

Without believing in God, the Buddha came up with the Noble Eightfold Path. I think this is support of option (2), which is also the 1st horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma. But I accept that God himself created the cosmic law that Buddha and others were able to recognize. At the fullness of time, God himself took flesh to save humanity from the power of sin and give us immortality.

If Christianity is true, the answer looks to be "might makes right.' I dare you to challenge this assertion And then refer back to post #264, for why we are slowly circling back to the beginning.

It's certainly been fun and got me to understand aspects that I hadn't thought about before. But perpetually is a very long time .

Yes, it's quite a pleasure conversing with you as well

Do you wish to keep discussing what God labels as 'sin', along with all of it's subtopics, or do you want to fast-forward to the grand finale yet?

 

[Andrewn]

Romans 1:18-22 uses keynote terms/phrases, such as: "suppress the truth", "God has made it plain to them", and "have been clearly seen". Seems to suggest that all humans, whom are not openly professed believers, are lumped into this category? As for Romans 2:14-16, looks to slightly confuse or conflict. Rom 1 and Rom 2 look to contradict one another; as the Verses in Rom 2 suggests some are genuinely ignorant, while Rom 1 suggests that all whom do not openly profess, simply suppress.

Rather than saying that Rom 1 & 2 contradict each other, it's easier to say that they complement each other. Before Christ, there is a group of non-Jews who believed in God (Rom 2) and a group who did not (Rom 1). EO Christians have icons of Greek philosophers in churches. Similarly, people like Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Zoroaster and others may be considered ancient believers.

https://www.omhksea.org/archives/6141

Regardless of categories or distinctions, sin looks to be "anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character". We can test this, by simply applying what I have provided, with the 10 Commandments....

That would be the definition of "transgression," which is one of the 4 types of "sin." I described this in detail previously.

Brushing this topic under the rug could be a grave and dyer mistake. If we are to adhere to Verses, such as John 3:16-18 or Mark 16:15-16 or Romans 10:9-10 or Acts 16:31 etc., then it looks abundantly clear that to believe, looks to be a paramount topic for salvation. We are only speaking about the eternity of your soul here. Unbelief looks to be a grave sin. To sidestep this topic, could merely be ignoring many Verses in Scripture, to instead only favor others. Let's not self-label ourselves a 'cafeteria Christian' Thus, I ask you again, is unbelief a sin? Can you control what you believe?

Yes, unbelief is a sin, at the very least in the sense of being a mistake, an error of judgment. No, I cannot believe that a free falling pen will not continue falling unless it is acted on by a different force for opposite direction and sufficient magnitude. Otherwise, there is strong evidence that it will continue falling. I think there is strong evidence for God. You can't perceive it at the moment but continue looking.

And furthermore, getting back to my prior response, for which I do not feel was truly addressed.... Which of the two looks to have a better chance of reaching Heaven??? a) A mass murdering rapist, whom earnestly professes to Christ prior to execution. b) A life long peace corps worker, and philanthropist, whom disbelieves/denies the existence of a creator?

In both cases, God judges the heart. If (a) is truly repentant then God will judge that. If (b) is truly repentant then God will judge that.

Then, in earnest, please tell me, do 'morals' really matter?

Yes, morality matters. But our morality, no matter how great it is, is insufficient to conquer the law of sin and death. Only believing in God the Savior justifies us.

But just as a preemptive observation, looks as though God hates all sin. According to God, every human is a sinner, right up to the point of natural death. Case/point, every human lies. In essence, we are breaking the Commandments daily, most likely.

Yes.

According to God, we are all filthy and unworthy of salvation.

This is true unless we are "in Christ." This phrase is used a lot in the NT. If we belong to Christ then we are a "new creation," this is also a biblical expression. God made the first creation beautiful and called it "very good" and He restores those who belong to Christ to the original image as reflectors of His light.

This is why God cloned Himself, to create a perfect sacrifice/offering to Himself. And anyone whom does not accept this 'offering' is condemned.

I don't think God offered Himself to Himself. He offered Himself to ransom us from the law of karma / sin and death, to pay our debt that enslaved us.

Furthermore, your 'repentive thief' example shed evens more light as to how 'morals' are irrelevant. It does not matter what this thief did prior, only his confession and worship. The other one on the cross may be going to hell for 'lesser' crimes; like worshiping the wrong god????

We know that Jesus forgave one thief. We know that He looks at he heart. We know that crimes have different motives. We don't know the motives that drove either one to commit their crimes or the nature of their crimes.

Please tell me how your response does not violate logic, in some capacity? God presents many prayer passages, as a promise. Even if you state that God is not a 'slot machine', or that God will not grant the wishes of the selfish, or you state that God answers on His terms; WHAT prayers DOES God actually answer, if He chooses not to answer the call of an earnest Christian, for a two-way dialogue? And furthermore, cares to ignore such requests for decades?

I don't know why God has not answered the call of an earnest Christian. Just wait and God will answer, leave to His timing without insisting on a deadline.

However, I am not satisfied with your response. God gives hints of what is to happen to the "unbelievers", (or) the 'unchosen'. Let's look at two professed Christians. One swears by a works based salvation. The other, swears by faith based salvation. One of them is likely incorrect. They both also read the many passages about hell, as described in the NT. They both don't want to go there. God raises the topic, which is a 'huge' one for them. But cares not to elaborate WHY?

There is no dichotomy between faith and works. Discussions of these issues took place in the 15th & 16th centuries when the RCC told people they had to pay money to be released from Purgatory and told them they had to go for pilgrimage to the Vatican, etc. These are the kind of "works" the Reformers objected to. They did not object to Christian charity and morals, of course.

"Oh, BTW, hell exists, it's really really REALLY bad, and some of you will go there; ta ta." I find this irresponsible. ---> No clarification, no explanation, no true criteria, and is also left vague; for many to contemplate, debate, and for many to also threaten the other ones; for which they feel are not worthy of God's favor.

No one is worthy on his own, but we are worthy "in Christ." I think at this time even the RCC corrected its view of "works" and Protestants are becoming less hostile to the word "works." But we need to be clear as to what type of "works" we're talking about. We're talking about charity: the works of love.

Then we are right back to "what is 'free will' "? I can use your exact same argument(s), above in bold red, for taxation. Case/point: If the U.S. really wanted it's citizens to pay taxes, the U.S would force everyone to pay taxes. The answer is... The law is compulsory, and is presented to all humans in the U.S. Yes. "Pay, or else." This is coercive, or an ultimatum. Sure, you have the 'freedom' to reject, but prepare to accept the one and only alternative consequence; fines and/or jail time.

I think you know my view by now: those who break the law send themselves to prison. And those who break the law of karma turn into fleas after death . Of course, this is a figure of speech.

Thus, I ask again, why does God require our worship?

He requires "love." Sure, love includes adoration. But this is different from "worship" as understood by Muslims and some others. Why does He require love? Do you require love from your wife? Do you like that people whom you love would reciprocate? But remember that He treats the unrighteous with compassion:

Mat 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If Christianity is true, the answer looks to be "might makes right.' I dare you to challenge this assertion And then refer back to post #264, for why we are slowly circling back to the beginning.

I responded to that post in detail and you may reference my response.

Do you wish to keep discussing what God labels as 'sin', along with all of it's subtopics, or do you want to fast-forward to the grand finale yet?

It looks like we should understand each other's framework of thought or world view by now. No point in rehashing it, unless you think it is necessary. Might as well fast forward to the "grand finale" .

 

[cvanwey]

Rather than saying that Rom 1 & 2 contradict each other, it's easier to say that they complement each other.

You can say anything you like However, it certainly does not change the contradiction. Chapter 1 indicates humans already 'know', as it is clear to them. The ones whom deny are either rebellious, or plagued by sin. Chapter 2 insinuates some do not know, but maybe happen to sometimes do right by the 'true God' anyways.

Before Christ, there is a group of non-Jews who believed in God (Rom 2) and a group who did not (Rom 1). EO Christians have icons of Greek philosophers in churches. Similarly, people like Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Zoroaster and others may be considered ancient believers.

https://www.omhksea.org/archives/6141

It's very hard to take this link seriously. Why? It states:

"We can see vividly how God works to lead all nations to the Truth. Though their examples pale in comparison to the love, grace and sacrifice of Christ and His Saints, these philosophers help us understand the human condition, and how our longing can only be satiated by Christ."

*************

Remember what I have touched on already, about 'intentional agency.' Evolution dictates that most will attribute some 'unknowns' to a 'creator(s)'. Especially "long ago..." This is hardly rocket science. The author(s) of Romans tell it's readers that if they state they do not believe in the Christian God, then they are either suppressing, or blocked by sin. Frankly, it's quite brilliant It's an unfalsifiable argument. Score a win for the Bible.

That would be the definition of "transgression," which is one of the 4 types of "sin." I described this in detail previously.

And as I stated previously, any/all sin can be neatly classified under the realm of "anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character". We can test this if you like?

Yes, unbelief is a sin, at the very least in the sense of being a mistake, an error of judgment.

No, just..... no. (i.e.)...

It's 4000 BC, you believe the world is flat. Would it be logical to call yourself a 'sinner', in ANY capacity, for not having the knowledge to discern a differing conclusion/belief, based upon the presented evidence for your conclusion/evaluation at the time?

As I stated prior, you were the one whom brought up the LoL, in post 269. And yet, we agree, that we cannot control a belief. Evidence guides you to a conclusion/belief. And now you are saying that unbelief is a sin????

I gather you are only saying this, because you are in a precarious position. The Bible mentions the sin of unbelief in several places. In order to 'save face', you must find a way to 'justify' the Verses? It's called belief preservation. And like I eluded to prior, your belief is not based upon reason, logic, and evidence; it's based upon personal experience. Your personal experience acts as your sole source of evidence for your belief, in this category. Do you now wish to cut to the chase?

No, I cannot believe that a free falling pen will not continue falling unless it is acted on by a different force for opposite direction and sufficient magnitude. Otherwise, there is strong evidence that it will continue falling. I think there is strong evidence for God. You can't perceive it at the moment but continue looking.


In both cases, God judges the heart. If (a) is truly repentant then God will judge that. If (b) is truly repentant then God will judge that.


Yes, morality matters. But our morality, no matter how great it is, is insufficient to conquer the law of sin and death. Only believing in God the Savior justifies us.


Yes.


This is true unless we are "in Christ." This phrase is used a lot in the NT. If we belong to Christ then we are a "new creation," this is also a biblical expression. God made the first creation beautiful and called it "very good" and He restores those who belong to Christ to the original image as reflectors of His light.


I don't think God offered Himself to Himself. He offered Himself to ransom us from the law of karma / sin and death, to pay our debt that enslaved us.


We know that Jesus forgave one thief. We know that He looks at he heart. We know that crimes have different motives. We don't know the motives that drove either one to commit their crimes or the nature of their crimes.


I don't know why God has not answered the call of an earnest Christian. Just wait and God will answer, leave to His timing without insisting on a deadline.


There is no dichotomy between faith and works. Discussions of these issues took place in the 15th & 16th centuries when the RCC told people they had to pay money to be released from Purgatory and told them they had to go for pilgrimage to the Vatican, etc. These are the kind of "works" the Reformers objected to. They did not object to Christian charity and morals, of course.


No one is worthy on his own, but we are worthy "in Christ." I think at this time even the RCC corrected its view of "works" and Protestants are becoming less hostile to the word "works." But we need to be clear as to what type of "works" we're talking about. We're talking about charity: the works of love.


I think you know my view by now: those who break the law send themselves to prison. And those who break the law of karma turn into fleas after death . Of course, this is a figure of speech.


He requires "love." Sure, love includes adoration. But this is different from "worship" as understood by Muslims and some others. Why does He require love? Do you require love from your wife? Do you like that people whom you love would reciprocate? But remember that He treats the unrighteous with compassion:

Mat 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.


I responded to that post in detail and you may reference my response.


It looks like we should understand each other's framework of thought or world view by now. No point in rehashing it, unless you think it is necessary. Might as well fast forward to the "grand finale" .

For sake in brevity, I'm stream-lining the rest of the response with bullet points:

- The one whom professes to worship Him has the better chance. They will both sin just the same. The only difference is one pledged allegiance, and the other does not. Christianity, if true, is really devoid of any 'moral landscape'.

- You must violate the laws of logic to try and rationalize why God did not answer my prayers.

- God tells it's readers a place awaits some, which is 'horrible'. God cares not to tell the readers as to what specific criteria will keep them out of there. And if you seem to think He does, tell that to the many conflicting denominations. God's message looks reckless and unspecific, in regards to a seemingly grave topic. It's irresponsible, if He claims He 'loves' His creation. Unless we wish to re-define 'love.'

- God labels some actions, which are not controllable, sin. (i.e.) what you belief, your sexual orientation, etc... Knowing what we now know, doesn't the aforementioned violate logic?

- You stated prior, that God will not force you. Well, the government will not force you to pay taxes either. But I'm sure we can agree that, like taxation, both Christianity and taxation represent a compulsory proposition of ultimatums and/or coercion.

- No, He requires worship - "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."

 

[Andrewn]

It's 4000 BC, you believe the world is flat. Would it be logical to call yourself a 'sinner', in ANY capacity, for not having the knowledge to discern a differing conclusion/belief, based upon the presented evidence for your conclusion/evaluation at the time?

As I stated prior, you were the one whom brought up the LoL, in post 269. And yet, we agree, that we cannot control a belief. Evidence guides you to a conclusion/belief. And now you are saying that unbelief is a sin????

I gather you are only saying this, because you are in a precarious position. The Bible mentions the sin of unbelief in several places. In order to 'save face', you must find a way to 'justify' the Verses? It's called belief preservation. And like I eluded to prior, your belief is not based upon reason, logic, and evidence; it's based upon personal experience. Your personal experience acts as your sole source of evidence for your belief, in this category. Do you now wish to cut to the chase?

As I said, "sin" has 4 or 5 meanings (spending on how you count). The word "sin" translates the Greek "hamartia." "The term hamartia derives from the Greek ἁμαρτία, from ἁμαρτάνειν hamartánein, which means "to miss the mark" or "to err". It is most often associated with Greek tragedy, although it is also used in Christian theology.

"Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics. In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist's error or tragic flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from felicity to disaster. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or a wrongdoing."

"Hamartia is also used in Christian theology because of its use in the Septuagint and New Testament. The Hebrew (chatá) and its Greek equivalent (àµaρtίa/hamartia) both mean "missing the mark" or "off the mark". There are four basic usages for hamartia:

1. Hamartia is sometimes used to mean acts of sin "by omission or commission in thought and feeling or in speech and actions" as in Romans 5:12, "all have sinned".
2. Hamartia is sometimes applied to the fall of man from original righteousness that resulted in humanity's innate propensity for sin, that is original sin. For example, as in Romans 3:9, everyone is "under the power of sin".
3. A third application concerns the "weakness of the flesh" and the free will to resist sinful acts. "The original inclination to sin in mankind comes from the weakness of the flesh."
4. Hamartia is sometimes "personified". For example, Romans 6:20 speaks of being enslaved to hamartia (sin)."

Hamartia - Wikipedia

- The one whom professes to worship Him has the better chance. They will both sin just the same. The only difference is one pledged allegiance, and the other does not. Christianity, if true, is really devoid of any 'moral landscape'.

I trust the believer will not sin the same. And the difference is not a pledge but repentance.

- You must violate the laws of logic to try and rationalize why God did not answer my prayers.

Do you think that God has an obligation to answer prayer? Do prayer and the Laws of logic even belong in the same sentence? I don't think so.

- God tells it's readers a place awaits some, which is 'horrible'. God cares not to tell the readers as to what specific criteria will keep them out of there. And if you seem to think He does, tell that to the many conflicting denominations. God's message looks reckless and unspecific, in regards to a seemingly grave topic. It's irresponsible, if He claims He 'loves' His creation. Unless we wish to re-define 'love.'

Every single person will have to answer for themselves based on their love for God and other people not on their theological understanding or misunderstanding.

- God labels some actions, which are not controllable, sin. (i.e.) what you belief, your sexual orientation, etc... Knowing what we now know, doesn't the aforementioned violate logic?

Sexual orientation is not a sin.

- You stated prior, that God will not force you. Well, the government will not force you to pay taxes either. But I'm sure we can agree that, like taxation, both Christianity and taxation represent a compulsory proposition of ultimatums and/or coercion.

I understand that you don't find my previous answer satisfactory. All actions have consequences, good or bad.

- No, He requires worship - "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."

OK, the important thing is the heart, the motives.

 

[cvanwey]

As I said, "sin" has 4 or 5 meanings (spending on how you count). The word "sin" translates the Greek "hamartia." "The term hamartia derives from the Greek ἁμαρτία, from ἁμαρτάνειν hamartánein, which means "to miss the mark" or "to err". It is most often associated with Greek tragedy, although it is also used in Christian theology.

"Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics. In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist's error or tragic flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from felicity to disaster. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or a wrongdoing."

"Hamartia is also used in Christian theology because of its use in the Septuagint and New Testament. The Hebrew (chatá) and its Greek equivalent (àµaρtίa/hamartia) both mean "missing the mark" or "off the mark". There are four basic usages for hamartia:

1. Hamartia is sometimes used to mean acts of sin "by omission or commission in thought and feeling or in speech and actions" as in Romans 5:12, "all have sinned".
2. Hamartia is sometimes applied to the fall of man from original righteousness that resulted in humanity's innate propensity for sin, that is original sin. For example, as in Romans 3:9, everyone is "under the power of sin".
3. A third application concerns the "weakness of the flesh" and the free will to resist sinful acts. "The original inclination to sin in mankind comes from the weakness of the flesh."
4. Hamartia is sometimes "personified". For example, Romans 6:20 speaks of being enslaved to hamartia (sin)."

Hamartia - Wikipedia

Thank you for your response. More than ever, your given reply drives my point. Please again carefully look at my provided definition (i.e.):

"anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character"

Now lets test against your 4 given points...

1). "by omission or commission in thought and feeling or in speech and actions" - God's standard is 'perfection' in both a) thoughts and b) actions.

a) If I see a very attractive woman down the road, and I have an 'impure thought', is that not a 'sin' to God? I did not directly violate that girl. She merely walks by, and I register a thought of pleasure. She may not even know I've seen her, and goes about her merry way. But God rules such uncontrolled internal thought as 'sin'. You described Catholics. What is this called, in the confessional chamber? All together now... I've committed 'the sin of impurity.'

b) I fall and skin my knee. I harmed no one else. I get up, clean off my wound, and go about the rest of my day. If God wishes 'imperfection' in actions to also be labelled as 'sin' against Him, than it is against God's judgement. If He does not, then to mention this as sin, in any real context, is nothing more than a benign synonym at best. --> Which is not really worth mentioning to begin with...

2). "Humanity's innate propensity for sin".... This description begs it's own question. What IS 'sin'? I'll tell you, "anything that goes against God's wishes and/or objectively moral character"

3). "weakness of the flesh", really the same as the "thought" example in point 1) a).

4). "slave to sin" is the same as option 2).

I trust the believer will not sin the same. And the difference is not a pledge but repentance.

You continue to not engage my direct example. According to Scripture, whom is more likely saved --- (a or b)? Please pick one and explain your answer, using Scripture as your evidence?

a) Mass murdering child rapist. Later performs sincere confession to Christ, later performs sincere repentance to Christ, and worships Christ, prior to execution.

b) Life long peace corp worker and life long philanthropist, whom happens to reject the mere thought of the existence of god or gods? (S)he always has... (S)he is essentially, a version of a nihilist.

I'll give you a hint, the answer is not b); according to many Verses in Scripture. This conclusion essentially renders the topic of 'morals' irrelevant. But somehow, belief or lack-there-of, is a grave sin? --- An uncontrollable conclusion, after following the presented evidence?

Do you think that God has an obligation to answer prayer? Do prayer and the Laws of logic even belong in the same sentence? I don't think so.

I already addressed this in specific detail (i.e.) "God is not a slot machine." I will re-word my question/answer; hopefully in a way which lends to an answer of intellectual honesty...

Sure, God can do whatever He wishes, and owes us humans nothing. HOWEVER, the Bible suggests that God is interactive with humans. The Bible suggests that God loves His creation, and wishes to have an active relationship. Many Verses also state that God answers the call of both petitionary and intercessory prayers. Heck, millions claim they have received such answers in both petitionary and intercessory prayer requests. Hence, I ask you again, in complete earnest...

Do you find it ODD, that God never once answered my hundreds/thousands of repeated requests for remedial contact/exchange in dialogue? He seems to have skipped right over me. And just another piece of food for thought; please reference the following given Verses --- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23

Is it possible that either:

1) humans are merely accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses, by attributing contact/favor from God when they get a result they like?

Or,

2) does God decide to not adhere to Scripture, (for me)?

Sorry to press this false dilemma, but I cannot find a third plausible conclusion here...

Every single person will have to answer for themselves based on their love for God and other people not on their theological understanding or misunderstanding.

This does not address my response, in the slightest

God looks to be irresponsible in His communication. God mentions the 'absolute worst thing ever' - hell. And cares not to elaborate. It appears negligent, if He, in the same breath, wishes to also claim 'love' for His creation. He looks to be violating His own Logic. If you love someone, and also have means to provide clear instruction, seems logical to do it. To perform the opposite, begs the question.... 'What is true love"?

Sexual orientation is not a sin.

Tell that to God. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

I understand that you don't find my previous answer satisfactory. All actions have consequences, good or bad.

Please let me recount my prior responses here...

God created the entire playground. It is as follows... 'Disney Land' (or) a 'concentration camp'.

"good" = Disney Land
"bad" = concentration camp

God has chosen ONE PATH for the ones He labels 'bad.' This is God's dichotomy. Sure, all actions have consequences. But in the case for God, the only alternative consequence, is of the 'worst imaginable landscape possible."

OK, the important thing is the heart, the motives.

God requires worship, or else. Why?