22 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyAnd Christians continue to spread love all around the world, especially in the Middle East. So much so, that people of that region are overwhelmed and are trying their best to return some of that love back to us.
I am not sure every religion is said to be based in love. For example, I am not sure Islam views God as a God that is based in love. Allah actually is said to hate certain people and only loves those who do his bidding. In fact, Allah continues to desire the deaths of infidels world wide.
Conversly, the Chrisitan God is a God of love because Christ said ...[text shortened]... to kill in the name of Christ. However, they were not following his example now were they? 😉
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillIt's funny that so many people responded to this poorly worded post.
I have considered the subject of believing that there is no God in the Bible itself.
I can see much indication that God believes that atheists exists. Can any Bible student give me a reason to believe that God believes in Athiests?
1. "Does God Believe in Atheists?"
Think about that.
Doesn't being God mean that you KNOW as opposed to "believe" anything?
2. "I have considered the subject of believing that there is no God in the Bible itself."
Somebody tell me what the heck that means!
To me it comes off as .. I'm thinking about believing that there is no God in the bible itself.
3. "I can see much indication that God believes that atheists exists. Can any Bible student give me a reason to believe that God believes in Athiests?"
I'm not a bible student, but my concept of God is such that He doesn't "believe" anything .. He knows everything. (that's what makes Him God)
From my reading of the bible I think that atheists are the prodigal sons written about in the bible. God is very aware of these and loves them very much. When one of these turns around and comes home God is overjoyed.
In this sense, God believes in atheists.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt isn't true that God chooses people to damn. Scriptures teach that God elects for salvation, but that unbelievers are in hell by their own choice. Every passage of the Bible that deals with election deals with it in the context of salvation, not damnation. No one is elect for hell. The only support for such a view is human logic, not Biblical revelation.
But the omnipotent, omniscient tw*t chooses not to save, right? Like a kid with a PSP.
God knows and has known from “eternity past” who will exercise their free will to accept Him and who will reject Him. The former are “the elect” and the latter are the “non-elect.” Everyone who is not saved will have only himself to blame: God will not send anyone to hell, but many people will choose to go there by exercising their free will to reject Christ.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by jammerMy thoughts exactly... Well said.
It's funny that so many people responded to this poorly worded post.
1. "Does God Believe in Atheists?"
Think about that.
Doesn't being God mean that you KNOW as opposed to "believe" anything?
2. "I have considered the subject of believing that there is no God in the Bible itself."
Somebody tell me what the heck that means!
To me it comes off as ...[text shortened]... round and comes home God is overjoyed.
In this sense, God believes in atheists.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by VarqaWhat has my chess rating or my political beliefs got to do with anything? Last time I looked that wasn't what the debate was about. Oh no, wait, I got ya. You're just another one of them ones who can't tackle my points head on, so feel you have to attack me personally. Feel free. Go ahead. You think I care?
It was actually a joke, but you obviously are in too bad of a mood to notice.
By the way, dumb and stupid are pretty strong words coming from someone who has a Chess rating of 800 and still believe in Communism.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzOmnipotence means possibility, not an imperative of doing something. Omniscence means knowledge, not an nesscesity to intervene. Weak attack, I would rather strike against universal love.
Then he's either not omnipotent, not omniscient or contradictory with logic.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by doodinthemoodI beg your pardon??? Did I say anything like "not that omnipotent". I just said that possibilty does not equal to obligation. Would you disagree, logical friend???
Same thing again! Bring up that contradiction in logic and you will ALWAYS be met with a version of "God is omnipotent, but he isn't that omnipotent" XD
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by ChoreantYep. He forgot to add morally perfect.
Omnipotence means possibility, not an imperative of doing something. Omniscence means knowledge, not an nesscesity to intervene. Weak attack, I would rather strike against universal love.
Thread 21886
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaYep, but this entire argument Thread 21886 sucks, beacuse point (2) cannot be taken as an axiom.
Yep. He forgot to add morally perfect.
Thread 21886
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by ChoreantThat has been addressed in the thread.
Yep, but this entire argument Thread 21886 sucks, beacuse point (2) cannot be taken as an axiom.