Hit And Run Xtians

[Abiyoyo]

First we have HanSolo who wants all commandments to apply to all people, then we have you who wants to so narrowly define commands that the Great Commission could only apply to the disciples and the only command to the Gentiles comes from the Jerusalem Council. If that were the case, then why do we find Paul carrying out the Great Commission since Paul wasn't one of the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking? I really don't know for sure what you are getting at here.

 

I center my 'doctrine' around the premise of Jesus as the center, not Paul. Why did Paul carry on? Good question. How many miracles did Paul perform? You do know Paul was considered a Hellenistic Jew?

[Abiyoyo]

I want to add to that last post this is why I contend with Paul. He, Paul, is the one that guided his early churches, ....by his own methods of what he thought the church should be. Hence, my aviator.

 

So, you contend that Paul had no direction from Jesus and none from the rest of the church leaders? That simply shows that you have not read or understood the Book of Acts. Paul worked consistently with the church leaders and checked himself to make sure that he was preaching the true gospel. Here is a passage from Galatians to consider.

 

No. I feel Paul was trying to establish Judaism through the new concept of Jesus Christ, just as a Hellenistic Jew would do. Don't get me wrong, I think Paul is extremely important to the history and culture of Christianity, but his ways by his letters are implemented in modern church doctrine, and causes the diversity.

 

The thing is, his ways were different for each church he wrote, trying to help them with their specific problem areas.

 

 

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they glorified God because of me. Gal. 1:12-24

 

Again, I am not saying Paul was not for Jesus, just he had his own methods of establishing his churches. Hence, 300 years later, we have the Counsel of Nicaea because of different doctrines.

[Neon Genesis]

Now, as an atheist (which I assume you are) why are you even concerned about free choice as you cannot arrive at having free choice from your worldview? Naturalism can't get you to free choice any more than my computer can exercise free choice. So, I don't know why this is so troubling to you.

As I keep telling you, it's the other way around. So long as you worship a dictator like your god, you don't have freewill. The bible itself says you're a slave to Christ, so how can you have freewill as a slave for Jesus? If a kidnapper puts a gun to your head and tells you to do whatever he says or die, how is that free choice? Now replace the kidnapper with God and the gun with hell and explain to me how you xtians have free choice.

 

So, you contend that Paul had no direction from Jesus and none from the rest of the church leaders? That simply shows that you have not read or understood the Book of Acts. Paul worked consistently with the church leaders and checked himself to make sure that he was preaching the true gospel. Here is a passage from Galatians to consider.

Through quoting the verses you did, you just proved Paul had no direction from Jesus or the church leaders at all. In verse 12, Paul himself says no one taught him the gospel, he just received it from a "revelation" for which there is no evidence for occurring. And in verse 19, it says he saw none of the apostles expect James, the brother of Jesus, who wasn't even one of the original 12 apostles and didn't go out with Jesus during his ministry at all. Why didn't Paul see Peter, who was supposed to be the rock Jesus said he would be build his house on, not Paul? Or even one of the other two James who were the original apostles? But no, Paul decides to get a second hand account about Jesus from an apostle who wasn't even with Jesus during his ministry at all. And you want us to believe Paul's words are reliable? And tell me, where in the bible does Jesus say he approves of everything Paul preaches? And I don't want a quote from Paul or one of the apostles. I want one from Jesus himself.

[LNC]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Why not? That assumes that you could not know Jesus without knowing him completely. If that is the case, then none of us knows anyone since we cannot have complete knowledge of any other person.

[LNC]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Agnosticator, I was thinking that myself. That.....would mean that LNC doesn't believe in the trinity.

 

Actually, it means that Agnosticator's point does not follow, nor does yours. See my response back to him.

[LNC]

No he isn't accountable. God is. He's the one who hardened the pharaoh's heart. If he hadn't have done that, the pharaoh could've let them leave without a fight. God even mentioned that he was going to do this beforehand to Moses. Then god hardens the pharaoh's heart again and has the Egyptians follow the Jews and get killed. How can you possibly interpret this story as the pharaoh making his own choices when it clearly says that god hardened his heart? This is the main bible story that caused me to admit to myself that I've always been an atheist. Before, I believed that the pharaoh made the choice, like you do, but after reading the story, I could no longer believe that. It clearly says that god hardened his heart and then killed all the first born sons and even animals, which is an unjust punishment. How you can interpret this story in the way that you do and just turn your back to the horror of it is baffling to me.

 

You are assuming a lot for which you have no proof. You are assuming that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart meant the suspension of his free will and you have no evidence of that. God used the plagues to harden his heart, which meant that he still had the choice as to whether or not to respond to those events. Obviously Pharaoh was able to resist God in the first nine events and finally relented in the tenth, but then changed his mind after letting the Israelites go. So, I think you have a skewed view of what the hardening meant.

 

Now, you also talk about the horror and I am not sure on what you base your morality. Is it based upon your opinion or do you ground your moral inclinations on something objective? If so, upon what?

[par4dcourse]

*BAM* You're a close minded dickhead, the wholly babble is a steaming pile of dogshit, and your God can kiss my lilly white ass.

Now you've been struck by a hit and run atheist.

You asked for it by preaching your version of the TRUTH^TM in an ex-C forum.

[chefranden]

I am still here. I've been travelling and unable to post for a bit. BTW, I can't convert anyone, that's not my job. I am here to answer questions and to challenge assumptions. However, since I am invovled on the other thread and having a hard time keeping up there, I am not going to add to my efforts by posting any more here. So, if you want to jump into it, join us on the Open Discussion With Lnc thread.

 

Cheers!

 

Who's Job is it?

[Looking4Answers]

I answered all this assholes objections and then he goes and ignores me. I dealt with his Pharaoh issue, with his free will issue, with is assertions of truth that he cannot possibly know for certain, with his absolute ideas that even other theologians throughout the ages have questioned and come to no solid conclusion and LNC just treads on, ignoring answers.

 

Who's Job is it?

 

chefranden,

 

I answered that fairly completely earlier in this thread. LNC ignored that one as well.

 

LNC made many errors in the assertion of his supposed Bible knowledge. These were pointed out as well. He ignored them.

[LNC]

I asked my mother this when I was five years old, before I even knew who Richard Dawkins was. I ask it now not to copy him, but because I thought of the question on my own, and because I know no Christian will ever give me an answer better than "he always existed," the exact answer I got from my mom. There are those of us on this site who do think for ourselves (I would venture to guess that more than 85% do) and don't just regurgitate quotes and quips from atheist authors. If anything, I encounter more Christians who do this than atheists or ex-Christians. Once you move out of the cult, you tend to want to think for yourself rather than let someone in authority do the thinking for you.

 

OK, so maybe Dawkins copied it from you. However, it is only a question that a child or someone uninformed about the concept of God would really ask. It is not I who defines God. That definition has been around much longer than any of us. Are you familiar with the philosophic concept of a necessary being? A necessary being is a being that cannot not be. That would indicate that the being has always existed. It goes back to the fact that the universe is a contingent entity that requires an explanation, the explanation has to be immaterial, spaceless and timeless. That explanation is God, whose explanation is contained within himself (by definition of a necessary being.) Check out Aquinas and Leibniz for more information on this concept.

[LNC]

So, Jesus could not have been god.

Agnosticator, I was thinking that myself. That.....would mean that LNC doesn't believe in the trinity.

 

...making him a deist? Or he could start his own cult: THE CHURCH OF LNCOLOGY

 

No, I am fully a theist and a Christian. No need or desire to start anything. Thanks for the thought though.

[chefranden]

No, he is actually saving every person whom he intends to save.

 

Nope, he makes us spiritually alive and then we can choose to put our trust in him. There is no violation of will involved.

 

Will you please try to put these together in a way the makes some logical sense?

 

It's confusing: God the ALMIGHTY saves whom he intends to save. If he intends to save Joe, but Joe chooses not to put his trust in him, then God does not save whom he intended to save.

 

On the other hand by implication there must be those that God does not intend to save. He intends them to be damned. What if some of those choose to trust God? Oops, sorry fella but you don't have a ticket to ride. These people must be the umm Ex-Christians eventually.

 

Could be that God has chosen us for damnation, and that we disobeyed him by being Christian or trying rather. Therefore upon de-conversion we submitted to the perfect will of God i.e. to be the fuel for the fires of hell, so that y'all might understand what a good deal you got. Therefore by being the evil reprobates that we are, we are probably more perfectly abiding in the will of God than all you Christians that can't stop sinning.

[LNC]

I don't have a gawd, but God is omniscient and the creator of everything.

 

You just admitted that there is no free will.

 

End of discussion.

 

Moron.

 

*PLONK*

 

Really, how do you figure. In case your thinking that foreseeing is the same as foreordaining, they are not. Sorry, but you haven't made your case.

 

I guess the discussion can go on.

 

*Whew*

[chefranden]

God's desire is that all would be saved; however, he will not violate our free will. It is not God's desire that you burn in hell for eternity; yet, if you choose to remain in rebellion against him, he won't force you to be with him for eternity.

 

Then why aren't they all saved? I did not choose to not accept God. I accepted God. God proved to me by his absence that he was always absent and never present. Reluctantly I had to conclude that I am is really I am not.

 

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" Well Brother LNC, I would have settled for a stone.

[chefranden]

Jonah is a good example of God can and will violate freewill. Jonah refused to preach to Nineveh, and God supposedly had him swallowed by a whale, facing death. Pharaoh in Egypt, supposedly, God changed his heart, brought plagues on them. I would see that as violating freewill. God has always seemed to Biblically punish those that don't obey His commands.

 

Maybe freewill, is often confused with choice. We have a choice to make our own decisions, in this world, but if God were to give an order for someone to do this or that, then it seems God has Biblically interrupted freewill, and choice, to either punish those people, person, or get them to do what He commanded them to do. Biblically, that is.

 

If one had free will then one would get to participate in the set up of the world. We'd have something to say about the choice. We would make commandments that we could actually obey satisfactorily. Thou Shall not smash thy thumb with a hammer. Thou shall not drink from the toilet...

 

We don't have free will because we are constrained to circumstance unlike God. I have the free will not to be old, nevertheless I am old. I'm sure that is part of a woman's free will not to be raped, but many are raped and some guys too. It is certainly part of free will to eat and yet many starve to death.

[chefranden]

There are two ways of looking as will. Theologians have referred to the two types of will expressed by God in various ways over the years, including his sovereign will vs. his moral will, his preceptive will vs. his decretive will, his efficient will vs. his permissive will, his secret will vs. his revealed will, etc. The bottom line is that there are some things that he wills, but permits freedom, and other things that he wills that definitely come to pass. So, there is both a level of freedom that God permits man and a level where God imposes his sovereign will. It would be what I would refer to as the free agency of man.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a crock of shit. Have you ever heard of double speak. This is a very good example.

 

Please give Chapter and Verse wherein each of these wills is enumerated. Show from scripture wherein God says he respects free will above even his own desire. Was it the free will of the Chinese to be drowned in the flood? Oh wait their culture is older than the bible flood, so they must not have gotten drowned.

[LNC]

Has ever a child NOT asked who made God?

 

Moms and Sunday School teachers tell this story and say God made this and God made that, and the starry-eyed child waits to hear "and who made God" but suddenly the story-telling ends. Thinking the adult just missed or skipped a part, the child asks the obvious, "Who made God?" The parent replied, "Nobody made God." Child, "But where did God come from?" In this conversation about beginnings, where the very world that has always existed had a beginning, it is unthinkable that this magic God did not have a beginning, too. Parent, "God didn't come from anywhere. God always existed." The parent looks so sincere that the child begins to realize the parent isn't playing any tricks or pulling any legs this time.

 

I doubt LNC was born yet when this happened to me and Richard Dawkins might have been in college but he had NOT written any of his books yet.

 

See my earlier response to this question. It is simply a misunderstanding of the nature and need of a necessary being in a universe that is a contingent entity.

 

The cult-forum where I found LNC (yeah, it was me who brought the guy over because I was naive enough to think people like HanSolo could talk sense to him)--anyway I've been shocked by the mimi-cry on the cult-forum where I found the guy. I read a few of the books and articles of their leaders and I found if you've read one book you're read them all. If you've talked with one Christian you've talked with them all. It's as though they divide up the workload so that one specializes in one topic and another in something else. Gary Habermas spent his life on studying the resurrection and he plans on doing this so long as it needs to be done. There is no indication about what kind of personal satisfaction he derives from the research after thirty years, or how it stimulates his intellectual curiosity. William Lane Craig specializes on the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God's existence and he repeats the same old arguments everywhere he goes and when he runs out of ammunition he recycles the old arguments.

 

One gets the feeling these guys do it the same way others go door-to-door or missionizing--for the glory of god rather than for any personal pleasure or for contributing to the fund of human knowledge. Given that only the highly priviledged of our world have access to higher education, this seems so very wrong.

 

These guys use up resources to research this garbage without so much as providing a single shred of evidence of god's existence. God's existence is presupposed and they argue from there. They think this is the best way to interact with nonChristians. They won't tell you that but I found a few articles and it sure fits the picture. What I have not yet found is a rationnal for thinking this approach could possibly work with nonChristians, esp. atheists.

 

Actually, you brought me over to this site because you were in over your head on a thread and argument that you could not argue. You thought that HanSolo and others could argue more effectively, and although they did, they were still left in a faith position on the topic (origin of the universe), so they weren't able to prove your case either.

 

It's funny that you say that if you talk to one Christian you have talked to them all, as I could say the same for atheists. Same arguments, same source information, same questions that have been long since answered, yet continued to be asked. That includes the question above, "who made God?"

 

Yes, Habermas specializes in the resurrection of Jesus and he is at no loss of new things to write since folks like Dawkins, et. al. seem to distort information so regularly. As for William Lane Craig, he specializes in the origin of the universe (arguing the Kalam Cosmological Argument), the design of the universe, the moral argument, and the resurrection of Jesus, so he is actually more well-rounded than you give him credit. Now, you say that he recycles arguments, which is actually not the case since he developed the Kalam argument to what it is and has refined the design argument as well. However, the reason he keeps using these arguments in debates (which, for your information include atheists who always use the same "recycled" arguments) is that his opponents cannot refute them. If an argument is successful, why change it? Even today, I was listening to his debate with Lewis Wolpert, and Wolpert had no new arguments, no answer for Craig's arguments, and, yes, he did ask "who created God?" which Craig went on to answer and he ignored.

 

You also say that we have "door-to-door" missionary zeal; however, if you will remember it was you who were on a predominantly Christian site (where you have posted nearly 1,800 times) and who brought me over to this site on which I have posted less than 300 times. That means that you are six times more evangelistic about atheism on the Christian site than I am about Christianity on the exChristian site. I am sorry to say that you put me to shame with your zeal.

 

As for evidence, you have been provided with plenty of evidence; the fact that you refuse to deal with it is not a reflection on the evidence, but on you. I don't know of anyone who argues for God's existence who presupposes it; however, I do know of many atheists who assume that it is the default position. They don't argue for it, but just assume that since there is not enough evidence (by their standards) to prove God exists, then somehow atheism is the fall back position. That is logically fallacious as the fall back position would be agnosticism. Yet, instead atheists will redefine the term atheism to be equivalent to agnosticism - just so they can call themselves atheists rather than agnostics. I find that highly interesting and telling.

[Abiyoyo]

God used the plagues to harden his heart, which meant that he still had the choice as to whether or not to respond to those events. Obviously Pharaoh was able to resist God in the first nine events and finally relented in the tenth, but then changed his mind after letting the Israelites go.

 

LNC, You have that turned around. It states that God was hardening the Pharaoh's heart to show them a sign.

 

 

Exod 7:3-5

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

(KJV)

[LNC]

Who wants to bet that three or four pages from now, LNC will realize he's lost and run away without admitting it like the rest of them?

 

So far, I am not sensing that anyone has a good argument that has been put forth. Apparently, the best you can offer is "who made God?" That is a philosophically naive question as it is like asking who made the bachelor single? Or, who made the circle round? Or, why does a square have four corners? The answer is contained within the definition of the entity.

[chefranden]

God hardened Pharohs heart, of which we don't quite understand the implications, however, Pharoh freely made the choices that he did and was and is held accountable to them.

 

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command. So, there could be some confusion as to what free will is and what free choice is. Again, I subscribe to free agency, which allows for both man's choice and God's sovereignty to work together.

 

It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that, He(God) could show them signs.

 

Exod 7:3

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

(KJV)

 

Oh, but you see God didn't really harden Pharaoh's heart. He just knew that Pharaoh's heart would be hard if presented a problem in a certain way. You see while the million of sperm were heading for Mrs. Pharaoh Senior's egg, God blocked all the sperm that could have a soft heart with that particular egg -- you know later when Pharaoh Junior would be king. Since sperm aren't smart enough to have free will, God is not really interfering in free will.

 

Oh and I forgot to mention that the Mrs. Pharaoh's egg from last month would have been a softy with any sperm so God made sure she had a headache on the days she was fertile. But he didn't interfere with her free will either because he made sure that her egg and sperm would produce a woman that had headaches when the proper egg was not in evidence. And of course so on back to Adam and Eve.

 

Therefore you should be able to see that God can harden a heart with out resorting to free will blocking.

[chefranden]

I want to add to that last post this is why I contend with Paul. He, Paul, is the one that guided his early churches, ....by his own methods of what he thought the church should be. Hence, my aviator.

 

Well if Jesus wants it back, what's the hang up with getting back?

[Neon Genesis]

It's funny that you say that if you talk to one Christian you have talked to them all, as I could say the same for atheists. Same arguments, same source information, same questions that have been long since answered, yet continued to be asked. That includes the question above, "who made God?"

The only reason atheists use the same arguments is that Christians never come up with anything original nor can they answer the atheists' arguments. As you say, if the argument is successful, why change it? But Christians haven't come up with anything new since the 1st century without stealing from the Muslims, but even the Christians' arguments are all stolen from the Greek philosophers. If anyone are the thieves here, it's the xtians.

 

Yes, Habermas specializes in the resurrection of Jesus and he is at no loss of new things to write since folks like Dawkins, et. al. seem to distort information so regularly. As for William Lane Craig, he specializes in the origin of the universe (arguing the Kalam Cosmological Argument), the design of the universe, the moral argument, and the resurrection of Jesus, so he is actually more well-rounded than you give him credit.

Didn't Craig steal that argument from the Muslims? And doesn't the bible say that philosophy is a sin? Quoted from Colossians 2:8

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

So, why is Craig committing sin to "prove" God's existence? According to the bible, since Craig is using the worldly philosophy of the Muslims, then Craig is using empty deceit and so I should beware him since he's not from Christ.

 

Now, you say that he recycles arguments, which is actually not the case since he developed the Kalam argument to what it is and has refined the design argument as well. However, the reason he keeps using these arguments in debates (which, for your information include atheists who always use the same "recycled" arguments) is that his opponents cannot refute them. If an argument is successful, why change it? Even today, I was listening to his debate with Lewis Wolpert, and Wolpert had no new arguments, no answer for Craig's arguments, and, yes, he did ask "who created God?" which Craig went on to answer and he ignored.

So, when Christians use other people's arguments, it's proof the argument works, but when atheists keep using the same arguments, this means we have nothing new and we're stealing from others? What was that Jesus said about plucking the shard out of your eye first?

 

Yet, instead atheists will redefine the term atheism to be equivalent to agnosticism - just so they can call themselves atheists rather than agnostics. I find that highly interesting and telling.

The only telling thing I find about this is that you're apparently so arrogant that you think know what atheism is better than actual atheists do.

 

So far, I am not sensing that anyone has a good argument that has been put forth. Apparently, the best you can offer is "who made God?"

And the only response you've put forth of it is "God is my imaginary friend and I believe in him, therefore he's real!" Are you three years old or something?

 

Well if Jesus wants it back, what's the hang up with getting back?

One must wonder where in the bible Jesus ever said he wanted to be the head of a church to begin with?

[agnosticator]

So, "god" would be known by man in heaven and the new earth, and he would not be god. If you would accept god as a mystery, I'd understand. But I know you don't. You have no knowledge of god; just subjective opinion from a book no different in knowledge than the koran.

 

Here is the problem with your definition. We can know God meaningfully (which I do) without knowing him exhaustively (which we never will even given eternity with him in heaven.) So, God has both mystery and has also revealed himself to man in a meaningful way. Again, you make a knowledge statement for which you have no possible knowledge. How do you know whether or not I have knowledge of God?

 

It would not matter to what extent you "know" god (even exhaustively). That would not change god at all. I was just following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

 

You admit god would "have mystery", yet say I cannot state that god is a mystery. That is inconsistent.

 

Your "knowledge" is subjective and cannot be objectively verified. "Belief" would be the term to use. Knowledge is objectively verifiable. So, I could rephrase my statement to"I believe god is a mystery", since we have no knowledge of god.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Why not? That assumes that you could not know Jesus without knowing him completely. If that is the case, then none of us knows anyone since we cannot have complete knowledge of any other person.

 

Again, I was following your reasoning to its conclusion. It doesn't matter to what degree you know someone, as long as they are real (objectively verifiable). Otherwise it's just opinion, or subjective belief.

[LNC]

Oh, really? So what is the condition for a man to go to Heaven then?

 

Trusting in Jesus. Belief in God existence is not enough. "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19)

 

So why send people to Hell?

 

People have rebelled against God.

 

Hah! I actually think he did.

 

I doubt it. "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." No one will be saying anything in their defense at the judgment.

 

That's the thing, I'm not asking you for evidence. My last prayer was to whichever/whoever God out there to give themselves up and give me enough evidence for me to believe in them. It's a free-for-all. Whichever God heard it, had and still has a chance. It's an open battle between the gods, but they're silent.

 

God is not a puppet to be ordered around. He has given sufficient evidence and if you choose to ignore that evidence, God is not obligated to answer all challenges put out to him. One atheist I heard today said that he would believe if he saw a few resurrections. One would not be enough for him. He was asked how many and he couldn't answer. I would guess that it would always be one more than he had seen.

 

So you're saying that I somehow know that God exists, but deny it because I'm somehow evil? It's in my nature to deny what I supposedly know? Why would I do that?

 

I am saying that there is sufficient evidence and if you choose to ignore or deny that evidence, then it is not God's fault. I never said anything about evil, but we are all sinners. Yes, the Bible says that it is because of our sinful nature that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:8).

 

Because he judges me, and so do you, without knowing me. And you and he judges me on assumptions that in my opinion are WRONG. That is prejudice. I can't be prejudice about your opinion about me, can I? It's your and Paul's opinion about me that is wrong, but you refuse to see it or admit to it, because you are prejudiced.

 

But you are judging him without knowing him as well. So why is your judgment OK, but his somehow biased? I haven't judged you, it is not my job to do so. In fact, Paul is not even judging you, he is simply writing what God had revealed to him. So, I am assuming by your definition that you fall into the camp of being prejudiced as well since you are doing that for which you judge Paul, is that right? If you believe the judgment about you (by God, not by Paul or me) is wrong, on what basis?

 

Well, DO YOU??? From all our conversations you have taken the approach of being the highty-mighty-holy-roller with the direct phone line to God with the almighty knowledge and total truth about everything you say. So do YOU have all that supernatural source of knowledge? I bet you think you do!

 

No, I have said it before and I will say it again, I am a sinner saved by grace. I didn't earn it and certainly don't deserve it. I have no more direct line to God than anyone else who reads the Bible. I am not a supernatural source of knowledge since I am but a mere mortal. So, you lose that bet. But it is curious that you seem to acknowledge some knowledge about me that is not based upon any evidence, might I ask if you have some supernatural knowledge? ESP perhaps? Maybe Tarot cards? I just wonder from where you claim such insight about me.

 

So if someone worships him, but don't believe in him, will they go to Heaven? Such a stupid idea! Don't you have to believe first to be able to worship? And why the hole-in-the-ground does God need or want worshipers? Is he THAT vain???

 

Why would someone worship that in which they don't believe. Worship assumes knowledge of that which is worshiped. All I am saying is that mere acknowledgment of existence is not sufficient. God doesn't need worshipers, but he deserves to be worshiped. It is not vanity, it is reality. Worship is the logical response of coming into relationship with the creator and sustainer of the universe and each one of our lives. I don't worship out of duty, but out of awe and reverence.

 

You know, it was years of creative thinking and trying to explain things that got me to this point. As a Christian I wanted to always know more, and it got me here. To the point where I don't believe anymore. The reasons, arguments, science, evidence, all of it, led to dis-belief. So God doesn't not show himself in nature... or at least, to be correct, not YOUR God. Nature as God proves itself over and over again, while your tribal God does not.

 

That is just what I said. Interestingly enough, I also a very curious and, yes, even a skeptical person, which is why I could never be an atheist. There are too many holes that could never be filled in by such a worldview. Now, I know atheists hate it when it is called a worldview, but that is what it is. For me, the reason, science and evidence all lead me to belief in God. God is all over nature, yes the God of the Bible (he is not mine, I don't own him; rather, I am his). If nature is god, it is a cruel god indeed! Nature is red in tooth and claw as Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote in response to his understanding of evolution. Yes, nature is a cruel god if it is a god at all. It is a god that I could never worship.