Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your level of success here appears to be commensurate with one that is relying on a fictional character in a book.
You already know my answer on this but I'll repeat as you've asked (in a general sense). I am offended that you believe or that Christ believes that it is morally just for me to be permanently exiled to permanent torment for the 'crime' of being born imperfect with the predisposition (as bestowed upon me) to 'sin'. I am offended that the solution to this is for God to insist that every human being afflicted with this imposed taint to be told they must accept Jesus and repent for their sins. A mad idea that by consequence condemns billions of people to hell, a place they don't even believe exists for reasons they don't even know exist.
I am offended that God even (as you communicate) sees fit to condemn people who do actually profess an adherence towards him. That he would send Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastarians, Baha'i, whomever to eternal torment simply for incorrectly evaluating his existence is even more contemptible.
Start with that.
I do not believe that my 'sins' command a sacrifice. I did not even ask for a sacrifice to be done in advance on my behalf. My 'sins' amount to general human imperfection, a trait God established upon humanity. By this consequence God is directly responsible for our sins, or rather our predisposition and tendency towards committing them. I do not accept the claim that my sins are mine alone in this context nor do I accept the claim that they are so grievous as to command nothing less than eternal torment.You have heard of Christ's sacrifice for your sins and you reject the offer.
Under no circumstance can what God offers here be considered a gift.God can only do so much my friend. A gift can either be received or rejected.
No, moral conviction and skepticism keep me from accepting the "most wonderful gift". I could never in good conscience, even if I believed it accept a gift that I knew would condemn billions of innocents to eternal torment.Pride keeps you from accepting the most wonderful gift anyone could receive.....eternal life with your Creator who loved you enough to die for you.
Sorry, no evidence has been presented that I need a "Saviour". We only have God declaring it, not establishing it.Like it or not, it is what it is. You need a Savior. If you reject Him you will only get what you deserve.
How would you know it was God revealing Himself
Perceptions based on what you have posted here.That all depends on what you perceive are my intentions in posting here.
So those "there will be hell to pay" comments were not aimed at me?I assure you, it is not my intention to convince you of anything or to convert you to Christianity,
Did someone else use your account to start all of those threads here, or is this what is referred to as "lying for Jesus"?or even to provide a demonstration or evidence of the veracity of the Christian faith to you.
I am not, and I have not seen anyone here offended by an end-of-the-world apocalyptic preacher that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.My intentions are to learn about why people are so offended at Christ so that I might better understand those who God will be sending across my path as I continue to seek to do His will in all things.
How disingenuous.Thus far, I have learned far more than I ever thought I would and have been greatly encouraged so I would consider my work and time here to be quite rewarding, fulfilling, and an all around great success!
I've heard stories, but no offers that could be verified as genuine.You have heard of Christ's sacrifice for your sins and you reject the offer.
You might think that an omniscient omnipotent deity could put a bit more effort into it. Just sayin'.God can only do so much my friend. A gift can either be received or rejected.
So, God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself.Pride keeps you from accepting the most wonderful gift anyone could receive.....eternal life with your Creator who loved you enough to die for you.
Hypothetically, still.Like it or not, it is what it is. You need a Savior.
So there is flamethrower aimed at me, and if the trigger gets pulled, I deserve it.If you reject Him you will only get what you deserve.
So, I got it straight, didn't I?
Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.
How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?
Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?
Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?
Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?
Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?
I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!
But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?
What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?
Your question arises the distinction, even when there is no difference, between truth and proof. Even if everything listed above were true, in that they truely and actually happened, those truths are not of themselves proof of anything. Truth is only proof to the extent that it is tested and proved.
As contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by a process wherein doubt is removed by testing. It is not so much that an idea is proved to us as it is all of the other idea considered have been disproved; what remains is what we are left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on, and so on.
Reasoning is the ontological sequencing of ideas. It is the organizing of ideas apart from their material, spatial or temporal being. As contingent beings, we ontologically sequence a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.That is to say that we organize one idea at a time.
Our contingent-reasoning is quite distinguishable from necessary-reasoning. A necessary being ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions. That is to say that a necessary being organizes all ideas all at once.
One of the most significant differences between our ideas and God's ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.
Will you carry this evasive style of yours into your "debate" style?
Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.
How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?
I suppose a god as Christians describe him, would know exactly what it would take,
and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
What we're talking about is the ability of an omni-being knowing exactly what it would take, without exception.Yes He would....
People could still choose not to recognize His existence even after they were presented with evidence, which if given under different circumstances, would constitute it as being undeniable.
Are you saying that you would acknowledge His existence if given good reason to?
You see what we are talking about is one's subjective interpretation of evidence. If a person is an anti-theist, then they are going to have pretty powerful emotional reasons that may color or affect the way they view evidence for God's existence.
What we're talking about is the ability of an omni-being knowing exactly what it would take, without exception.
Yes......
We are talking about God.....
I will take a shot in the dark and guess you mean to say that since some people are unconvinced that God exists, that that is evidence that He does not exist????
Is that your view?
My view is that, if your god exists, why has she gone to such great lengths to hide her existence.
Secondly, if your god exists and wanted me to believe, as I have clearly stated before, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?