So, what are you doing on May 21?

[therealUT]

Really? Can you cite a source for that?

I'm not being smart... I have just never seen that claimed a RCC doctrine of belief.

If it is in fact their view then it runs in direct contradiction to the teachings of the NT.

You aren't arguing with "some on this site" concerning that issue. I have no power to condemn or save. You are arguing with the clear teachings of the NT. I can provide references if you care to look at them.

Just a side question, if you have to be in God's presence to reject Him and be lost... then pretty much everyone is saved, right? Imagine the scene: "Well Mr Hitler, would you like to receive me and enter into eternal bliss.... or over here we have the alternate fate of burning eternally in a lake of fire without relief."

For that matter, what was Christ's death all about or our temporal lives? If all we really have to do is die and choose to go to heaven then the god you've constructed truly is cruel. Jesus suffered needlessly and we suffer in life for absolutely no reason.

Amazon.com: Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition (9780385508193): U.S. Catholic Church: Books

Buy it. Read it.

Most Catholics know little to nothing about their faith, their Canon, and the Doctrine and Dogma of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, there is a published authoritative source on this stuff.

 

[OJ]

Bible, buy it. read it.

 

[therealUT]

Bible, buy it. read it.

Have it. It is the reason I am not a Christian.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OJ]

Have it. It is the reason I am not a Christian.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I must say you got a lot of guts.

 

[therealUT]

I must say you got a lot of guts.

Why? Because I find fault with a god who decides to smite a fig tree simply because the fig tree wasn't bearing any fruit when he was hungry?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

I must say you got a lot of guts.

 

[sjt18]

Why? Because I find fault with a god who decides to smite a fig tree simply because the fig tree wasn't bearing any fruit when he was hungry?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Buy it. Read it.

Here's a collection that includes Spurgeon... Don't buy it. Read it.

Bible Bulletin Board

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Really? Can you cite a source for that?

I'm not being smart... I have just never seen that claimed a RCC doctrine of belief.

If it is in fact their view then it runs in direct contradiction to the teachings of the NT.

You aren't arguing with "some on this site" concerning that issue. I have no power to condemn or save. You are arguing with the clear teachings of the NT. I can provide references if you care to look at them.

Just a side question, if you have to be in God's presence to reject Him and be lost... then pretty much everyone is saved, right? Imagine the scene: "Well Mr Hitler, would you like to receive me and enter into eternal bliss.... or over here we have the alternate fate of burning eternally in a lake of fire without relief."

For that matter, what was Christ's death all about or our temporal lives? If all we really have to do is die and choose to go to heaven then the god you've constructed truly is cruel. Jesus suffered needlessly and we suffer in life for absolutely no reason.

God is not a vengeful person. He doesnt send people to hell, you chose hell. He gave us free will for a reason

 

[sjt18]

God is not a vengeful person. He doesnt send people to hell, you chose hell. He gave us free will for a reason

God is vengeful according to the Bible but not without reason.

But to your point, yes, people choose hell. God does not choose hell for them. More specifically, people make the same choice Adam did.... they choose self over a relationship with God.

 

[VolsByNature]

Why? Because I find fault with a god who decides to smite a fig tree simply because the fig tree wasn't bearing any fruit when he was hungry?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

In Mark 13, or Rom. 8 the infected fig tree become symbols of famine caused by the work of satan. Jews believed the Messiah would relieve them of Satans grasp on nature. I believe, and what was explained to me, when you interpret Jesus cursing the fig tree, it's proclaiming He is the one to destroy the devils work and restore creation. Some believe the fig tree represented Israel, who had not bear any fruits. And the death of the tree was a visible prophecy for the fate of Jerusalem for denying the Messiah.

There are a few ways to interpret it, but to say he lost his temper and cursed something... well if that's how you would like to interpret, so be it. Just thought I'd give you something else to think about. Not preaching brother... but I do find it odd that out of all the miracles Jesus performed in the Bible you pick the one that, on the surface, feels like a negative one. So you DO beleive that Jesus cursed a tree, but do you not believe he healed the sick and died on the cross for us?

 

[lawgator1]

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Buy it. Read it.

Here's a collection that includes Spurgeon... Don't buy it. Read it.

Bible Bulletin Board

Saw an original copy of this in the Boston Public Library, along with John Adams' notes for closing argument in the Boston Massacre. Truly an inspiring visit to the corner of a library...

 

[DinkinFlicka]

God is vengeful according to the Bible but not without reason.

Regardless of reasoning, vengeance is a flaw. He goes from almighty creator to an angry kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill.

 

[Volst53]

OT or NT god?

 

[sjt18]

Saw an original copy of this in the Boston Public Library, along with John Adams' notes for closing argument in the Boston Massacre. Truly an inspiring visit to the corner of a library...

Yeah, it is truly a shame that documents that contributed to the spiritual zeal required for our nation's revolt from England are relegated to a corner and completely unknown to many. The Great Awakening and its preachers contributed to or independence movement.

 

[sjt18]

Regardless of reasoning, vengeance is a flaw.

No it isn't. All justice for crimes and transgressions is based on righteous vengeance.

He goes from almighty creator to an angry kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill.

Case in point of what I was saying earlier. You can choose to submit to God or accept His will over your own. That is THE fundamental choice for man from Adam til now. You seem to have made your choice by arbitrarily deciding that you are qualified to judge God unrighteous for punishing what He declares sinful.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

No it isn't. All justice for crimes and transgressions is based on righteous vengeance.

Case in point of what I was saying earlier. You can choose to submit to God or accept His will over your own. That is THE fundamental choice for man from Adam til now. You seem to have made your choice by arbitrarily deciding that you are qualified to judge God unrighteous for punishing what He declares sinful.

I made my choice by not buying into a deity that I cannot see, hear, or feel. It takes far more than a book annd legions of youth pastors to convince me to submit to an unknown entity for the entirety of my life.

As far as judging the concept of God, I feel I'm every bit as qualified as anyone else. I've seen and heard him every bit as much as you have.

 

[OJ]

I made my choice by not buying into a deity that I cannot see, hear, or feel. It takes far more than a book annd legions of youth pastors to convince me to submit to an unknown entity for the entirety of my life.

As far as judging the concept of God, I feel I'm every bit as qualified as anyone else. I've seen and heard him every bit as much as you have.

Hell Yes.

 

[sjt18]

I made my choice by not buying into a deity that I cannot see, hear, or feel.

The God of the Bible is omniscient, hears the prayers of believers, and identifies with our infirmities.

It takes far more than a book annd legions of youth pastors to convince me to submit to an unknown entity for the entirety of my life.

That is your prerogative. You are choosing to believe in yourself rather than God. That's all I said before.

There are consequences to every decision. If you are right then folks like me would have wasted some time. But as John R Rice once said, the quality of life and genuine contentment from living Christian principles makes it worthwhile even if we are wrong.

If you are wrong then you can only blame yourself.

As far as judging the concept of God, I feel I'm every bit as qualified as anyone else.

I didn't question you judging the concept of God. I specifically questioned your making your self a judge over God.... condemning his actions by YOUR moral standard.

I've seen and heard him every bit as much as you have.

Frankly and honestly, no you haven't. Rom 8:16. It isn't something that a Christian can share or even describe for an unbeliever. It isn't boasting or somethng derived from a Christian's personal goodness. It isn't quite emotional but not intellectual either. It is just a sense of something different shared by born again believers everywhere. I suspect that every believer here will acknowledge what I am saying.

John also wrote of this in his first epistle 4:13.

Beyond that, Paul writes pretty clearly of your attitude in I Cor 1 beginning around vs 18.

I cannot make you believe nor would I if I could. Christians are responsible to spread the gospel. You are responsible for what you do with it.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

The God of the Bible is omniscient, hears the prayers of believers, and identifies with our infirmities.

Or so it is written.

That is your prerogative. You are choosing to believe in yourself rather than God. That's all I said before.



There are consequences to every decision. If you are right then folks like me would have wasted some time. But as John R Rice once said, the quality of life and genuine contentment from living Christian principles makes it worthwhile even if we are wrong.

If you are wrong then you can only blame yourself.

John Rice must have never wasted his time loving something that yielded no fruit. I'm more than capable of being an upstanding member of society. I don't need Christian principals to do so. If I'm right, then this is my only life. I cannot allow myself to dedicate a good portion of that life loving something that, for all you and I know, doesn't exist.

I didn't question you judging the concept of God. I specifically questioned your making your self a judge over God.... condemning his actions by YOUR moral standard.

I'm not condemning his actions. That would contradict my beliefs. I'm condemning what most Christians derive from Biblical text concerning his judgment.

Frankly and honestly, no you haven't. Rom 8:16. It isn't something that a Christian can share or even describe for an unbeliever. It isn't boasting or somethng derived from a Christian's personal goodness. It isn't quite emotional but not intellectual either. It is just a sense of something different shared by born again believers everywhere. I suspect that every believer here will acknowledge what I am saying.

John also wrote of this in his first epistle 4:13.

Beyond that, Paul writes pretty clearly of your attitude in I Cor 1 beginning around vs 18.

I cannot make you believe nor would I if I could. Christians are responsible to spread the gospel. You are responsible for what you do with it.

It's an outlook, not an attitude. It would be wise to not confuse the two when discussing things of this matter.

The Bible, to me, is a terrific sales pitch. History has clearly illustrated that. It's a compendium of a tactfully placed parables, guidelines, and proverbs designed to convince the reader that it is all necessary to free yourself from this world and find perfection in eternity. Trust me, I'd like for that to be true, and I spent years trying to believe it, but it takes more than text and coincidence to convince me.

 

[sjt18]

Or so it is written.

Yes. It is a matter of faith. So is whatever you fundamentally believe. If you are an atheist then you believe in naturalism/materialism. You can prove neither. Everyone operates on faith. Some reasonable faiths... some not.

I cannot allow myself to dedicate a good portion of that life loving something that, for all you and I know, doesn't exist.

Two things. One, I believe I have more experiential evidence that God does exist than you will ever have that naturalism is the true philosophy ruling reality. Two, serious Christians consistently say they are happier than the population overall. See George Barna for polling. He asks qualifying questions that divide nominal Christians from those who take their faith seriously. He digs much deeper than the typical pollster.

Rice's point was that even if what he believed were wrong, he was happier than those who didn't believe.

I'm not condemning his actions. That would contradict my beliefs. I'm condemning what most Christians derive from Biblical text concerning his judgment.

Same thing if the Bible is an accurate description of the character of God.

q

It's an outlook, not an attitude. It would be wise to not confuse the two when discussing things of this matter.

Agreed but it looks like an attitude based on what you have revealed here. Perhaps that isn't the complete picture?

The Bible, to me, is a terrific sales pitch. History has clearly illustrated that. It's a compendium of a tactfully placed parables, guidelines, and proverbs designed to convince the reader that it is all necessary to free yourself from this world and find perfection in eternity. Trust me, I'd like for that to be true, and I spent years trying to believe it, but it takes more than text and coincidence to convince me.

If it is indeed "coincidence" then it is the most remarkable and irrational set of coincidences that anyone could have ever constructed. Just the messianic prophecies present a near impossible "coincidence" in Christ. Forty authors working independently over 1400 years to write 60 books that can produce a systematic theology using a consistent approach is pretty remarkable.

If you are truly open then you should try to books that are widely available. Both are written by formerly very hostile atheists.

HotBookSale.com - Books by Strobel Lee

The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, or both

The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Fully Updated to Answer the Questions Challenging Christians Today - Buy Cheap Books at HotBookSale.com

 

[VOLatile]

Atheists lack faith. There may or may not be a god, no way to prove it. Therefore atheists have no faith in a god or no god. Now, when one says there probably isn't a god, that's based on reason and observation of the non-existence of god(s). Only theists have faith as defined within the realm of religion. Now, I could say I have faith in the scientific method but that's a completely different faith by definition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MUR73]

you stretch the definition of evidence

Care to elaborate?

 

[sjt18]

Atheists lack faith.

Nope. You just put your faith into something different. Without faith in some unproven and unproveable premise/philosophy, you could not reason.

There may or may not be a god, no way to prove it. Therefore atheists have no faith in a god or no god.

All that exists may be the result of only natural law and phenomena... no way to prove it.

Now, when one says there probably isn't a god, that's based on reason and observation of the non-existence of god(s).

You just made a faith statement... whether you like it or not. You have said "in faith" that the only things that can be real are those you have experienced or can reason.

Only theists have faith as defined within the realm of religion.

No. You just made a faith statement very clearly.

Now, I could say I have faith in the scientific method but that's a completely different faith by definition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes it is. A Christian could likewise express and possess complete faith in the scientific method.

The scientific method cannot prove what I believe nor does it support what you claimed above. In some respects, science can support a view being reasonable... but we've argued that here before.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Your argument is very common among Christians, and I'll give you the same response I've given anyone else presenting this argument:

Does it matter whether or not we, as atheists, have faith in nothing? Nature is not a deity, and natural laws are not commandments.

I mean, what is the point of arguing an atheist's faith? It seems like a "nana nana boo boo... gotcha" gimmick. I just don't see the significance of an atheist's faith, or lack thereof.

 

[sjt18]

Your argument is very common among Christians, and I'll give you the same response I've given anyone else presenting this argument:

Does it matter whether or not we, as atheists, have faith in nothing? Nature is not a deity, and natural laws are not commandments.

Yes. It does matter. Where your reasoning starts has a LOT to do with where you conclude. But you do not have faith in "nothing". Far from it.

Nature is not a deity? Do you agree with Sagan?... "The universe is all that is, was, or ever will be"?

I believe Sagan was terribly wrong but he was thoughtful and honest.

Natural laws are commandments in the same sense that you can speak of evolution designing or creating something. But atheists do not stop there, do they? Most atheists have some code of ethics or morality. It is necessarily derived from and relies upon their own authority and "deity". Worship of one's own will is the second oldest religion in the world.

I mean, what is the point of arguing an atheist's faith? It seems like a "nana nana boo boo... gotcha" gimmick. I just don't see the significance of an atheist's faith, or lack thereof.

What is the point? The point is that you all like to dismiss Christians because they rely on faith. It doesn't matter if it is logically consistent faith. It does not matter if it is a reasonable faith. The stock response you all throw out is that "You can't prove God" or "You are operating on faith whereas we operate on pure reason". I am showing you that these answers are not valid.

If relying on faith is wrong for a Christian then it is just as wrong for a materialist/atheist/naturalist. Just because you accept your presuppositions on faith and without really thinking about them does not mean they are more reasonable than mine. I do not deny mine. Many atheists as we've seen here do deny theirs. How can you "reason" something that you aren't even honest with yourself about?