Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[renniks]

This is my own reflection, mind you. But I truly do believe that if the basics of the Christian faith was "Love", that there would be absolutely nothing to argue against. But that's pretty hard to do when it's evil, the broken, the supposed curse and Satan that's being preached. That's just my take is all.

" Love" means many different things to different people. If one doesn't recognize that he needs saving he's not going to accept salvation.

 

[Frank Robert]

Why is it a problem? Do you think you understand the mind of God?

I told you why, I don't expect everyone will agree. Do you think everyone should agree with you?

 

[dlamberth]

It is, but but nature is also bloody and violent and cruel by humans standards. Nature has no standard of good or evil. And many people are also evil and hateful and cruel. That's just reality. If one doesn't see sin in this world, either he's deliberately ignoring it or he's given into it completely.

You prove my point very well.
Thank You!

 

[dlamberth]

" Love" means many different things to different people. If one doesn't recognize that he needs saving he's not going to accept salvation.

Anything but preaching Love.
Sad!

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Petros2015]

Can you think of a broader way (ie: stance and method) of distinguishing reality than what I suggested in post #2, items (i) and (ii), then?

we could build a particle accelerator and poke it harder and harder until it pokes back

 

[Astrid]

It is, but but nature is also bloody and violent and cruel by humans standards. Nature has no standard of good or evil. And many people are also evil and hateful and cruel. That's just reality. If one doesn't see sin in this world, either he's deliberately ignoring it or he's given into it completely.

Odd how much religious people are into black and white
either / or binary thinking.

I dont recognize the existence of
"sin" at all, it exists only in certain religions.

 

[dlamberth]

Why is it a problem? Do you think you understand the mind of God?

I think actually it's theology your pointing towards rather than the mind of God.

 

[renniks]

I told you why, I don't expect everyone will agree. Do you think everyone should agree with you?

No. I just don't see the problem.

 

[renniks]

Anything but preaching Love.
Sad!

I do preach love. But love in itself isn't the gospel. The love of God is an important component of the gospel.

 

[renniks]

I think actually it's theology your pointing towards rather than the mind of God.

That's what theology is by definition... the study of God.

 

[renniks]

Odd how much religious people are into black and white
either / or binary thinking.

I dont recognize the existence of
"sin" at all, it exists only in certain religions.

Almost everyone believes in sin. If there's any action any human could take that you believe is wrong, you believe in sin.

 

[Astrid]

Almost everyone believes in sin. If there's any action any human could take that you believe is wrong, you believe in sin.

No.
"Sin" is about transgression of " divine" rules.

 

[SelfSim]

Almost everyone believes in sin. If there's any action any human could take that you believe is wrong, you believe in sin.

I don't think 'wrong' would exist, unless one first assumes the existence of some fundamental 'truth'. So believing in 'sin' is dependent on that also(?)
For example, the judicial system 'assumes' the existence of fundamental laws, in order to establish the consistency of the accused's actions relative to those laws. In that case, the laws may be considerd as assumed 'truths', (as are the actions actually taken by the accused) and the judgement of 'right/wrong', is a logical consequence flowing from that comparison. Those laws however, are not just accepted to exist .. their existence is objectively testable .. they are thus not; 'beliefs'.

PS: I think I agree with @Estrid, then?

 

[Astrid]

I don't think 'wrong' would exist, unless one first assumes the existence of some fundamental 'truth'. So believing in 'sin' is dependent on that also(?)
For example, the judicial system 'assumes' the existence of fundamental laws, in order to establish the consistency of the accused's actions relative to those laws. In that case, the laws may be considerd as assumed 'truths', (as are the actions actually taken by the accused) and the judgement of 'right/wrong', is a logical consequence flowing from that comparison. Those laws however, are not just accepted to exist .. their existence is objectively testable .. they are thus not; 'beliefs'.

PS: I think I agree with @Estrid, then?

Um I think so

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There are two possibilities.
1. you truly want to know the truth and are open to accepting God. In which case I gave you the shortcut to get the information
OR
2. Nothing will change your mind about God. I will not waste my time, there are people who are open to the truth and want help.

You appear to be unwilling to admit you do not have the evidence you claim to have. Honesty seems to be in very short supply among so many Christians in these forums - that's a very sad state of affairs.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Almost everyone believes in sin. If there's any action any human could take that you believe is wrong, you believe in sin.

By definition, sin is a transgression against divine law. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in sin.

Get the basics right.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.
"Sin" is about transgression of " divine" rules.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[SelfSim]

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

.. and 'truth' is whatever we want it to mean.