People - I /was/ a Christian

No wonder Crash is an athiest, God lied to him. What other choice did Crash have since the Omnipotent Creator of the universe took away his free will by making him believe that God didn't exist?Since God forces individuals to believe what He wants them to believe, including the nonexistance of God, what actions/choices are left for us?

Yes you right. I should not have tacked on the last little bit about CFO standing as a Christian. I take it back.However I was reacting a little out of anger for this audacious statement..... That ought to rankle you a bit.Here CFO is speaking *for* God which is quite bit different then attempting to decide who is or isn't a Christian by some standard guideline.Can you see the arrogance and hubris is such a statement!!!! CFO is proclaiming to know God thoughts and just who God has or hasn't rejected. But who is deluded? Let look for external signs of delusion. Delusion is the keeping of a false belief in spite of invalidating evidence.Now consider there are those who believe myths are real like a child believing in Santa Clause. And those who hang onto bronze-age world views in spite of centuries of scientific progress and success that invalidate these views and myths. So just who is exhibiting external signs of delusion? No not a coincidence! The passage in question that CFO is badly misinterprets does not mention "false doctrine" so why should I add it. Nevertheless there is no false or seductive doctrine involved so it does not apply. You really believe that your loving god is going to send strong delusion to ensure a creature of his own creation a warm place in hell? That is just too damn incoherent.Beware, these are common manipulations and threats that cultists use to keep those timid followers from questioning and thinking independently. It works for some. We are all ears. This forum is a good place to demonstrate any "common deceitful practices" of the evolutionists. Expose their lies for all to see.I have listened to both sides and without a doubt the Creationist camp if full of deceit and dishonesty. The deceitful practices of YEC are well documented here and elsewhere. YEC literature and talks are a great way to illustrate a range of established logical fallacies, usually within the first paragraph or two. But this exactly what CFO did here, you should be exhorting your fellow Christian instead of providing support. He intentionally misinterpreted the passage so he could scratch his itch and label Crash delusional (ala direct from God). First It's not God's truth. Other false beliefs are equally opposed when they intrude into the political sphere.Second if opposition is some form of validation that must make slavery and child abuse pretty sacred stuff. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This is good to see. I cannot presume to speak for CFO, but this does improve my opinion of your character. There are a lot of subtleties in cases like this. CFO is stating a conclusion based on his understanding of Scripture, and his understanding of the events. Either of these could potentially be in error, throwing off the conclusion.Much is made of these occasions, as it is well known that Christians are instructed not to judge others. It's my understanding that judgement consists of determining guilt and assessing penalties. Observe that even discussing this brings me somewhat close to judging CFO. How easy it would be to cross the line!So, as a safety precaution I have implemented a policy against assessing penalties. This does not prevent me from stating a known penalty. The fine for illegal parking is $35. The wages of sin is death. This isn't making the rules - this is repeating them.There's nothing wrong with warning someone "You'll go to hell if you don't repent". But there's room for misunderstanding if I just say "You'll go to hell". "If you don't repent" is implied to anyone who knows the first thing about the Bible, but when it is left unspoken people are prone to misunderstand. So one should avoid the practice of leaving things unspoken which are implied, although it is common and efficient to leave many implications unspoken when discussing other subjects.CFO:

quote:

---

God has rejected you for scorning His Son, this explains "ex-Christians" who are now Atheists.

---

Now the problem here is that iceage takes as implicit a permanence to this rejection. CFO may have thought it just the opposite - that the rejection is temporary. Or not, I can't say.God does indicate that under some circumstances He will permanantly reject a man. He has also forgiven men in cases where we'd expect them to be permanently rejected. Saul was one example in the New Testament. Saul was both an arch adversary to God's children, and a hypocrite. But God forgave him.Shoot! Gotta run. I intend to get back to this soon. I don't like leaving things unfinished.

The trouble is that a lot of people who preach repentence at others don't know the first thing about the Bible. And a lot of people have stopped at the first thing, too.Some people stop learning. Some people keep on learning and stop being Christians.Some keep on learning and keep on being Christians - but they're few and far between.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As I have stated previously, my understanding of the verses under examination differs from that of CFO. And I have explained this difference.It is commonly maintained that God cannot love sinners and at the same time intend to punish them. It is also maintained these days that a parent cannot correct a child, and to do so constitutes abuse. Both of these claims are false. Love requires a parent to do what's best for the child.But there's more to it. God is just. It's part of who He is. It's not an option for Him to be unjust. When punishment is due, He will deliver it. But not according to our schedule!Being just, and loving the sinners, what is God to do when a sinner reaches the point where his heart is set so firmly that he will never repent? Shall the sinner be removed, or left to continue sinning and piling up more punishment in storage?These are the cases where caution is in order. We have no right to second-guess God, but by examining them we learn how wonderful He truly is. And how greatly to be feared!Men don't exist in a vacuum. They interact with one another. Now suppose a man harms one of God's children. If God loves his children, it is appropriate for Him to become angry. He is also merciful, so there's a chance the man will be allowed to repent.But if the man in question has already rejected God, and hardened himself to the point that he'll never repent, we have a new type of case. We have a permanent enemy of God provoking God to anger. In these cases, woe unto that man.God is constrained by being just. He cannot just take out His anger on the fool. But he can see to it the fool will have plenty of opportunities to store up more just punishment!Matt. 23: 33-35

quote:

---

[33] Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
[34] Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
[35] That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

---

Bible, King James VersionGod's love is not to be taken lightly. Neither His love for sinners, nor His love for his children. God has made provision for each and every sinner, and if they reject it they have no excuse.So I cannot say that God will refrain from sending delusions until the time of the Antichrist, although I think verses we've been discussing refer to those times. Who is deluded? I don't think I can answer this in a manner that would satisfy all parties. If one understands even partially the power it would take to accomplish creation, it is clear that anyone opposing the Creator must be deluded, mad, insane, etc. to an extent that words cannot express. But I don't expect most parties on the thread to agree. The term is found in the passage you cite from Matthew Henry. I take it he's deriving this from "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish".I must have missed something if no false doctrines are involved here. From a Scriptural standpoint, I don't think one could become an atheist without accepting at least one false doctrine. Oops. I should've saved some of the above & put it here. That's okay. I have a little more to add.It's noteworthy that the specific transgression in this case is "because they received not the love of the truth". Reception here isn't totally passive, like one receives a blow to the head. It's active like catching a pass. The love of truth was available and they tuned it out.Now such a man is pretty worthless even in your own worldview (I hope). They cannot pursue science, history, or any other field of thought without screwing it up.And yet the gospel is found even here. Had they received the love of truth they would have been saved. This is in keeping with "seek and ye shall find" & "taste and see that the Lord is good." It doesn't get any more creationist than this. Scripture says that anyone who loves truth can find it and be saved!Contrary to the propaganda, God invites people to pursue science. He doesn't deify it, of course. But pursuit of truth is what it's about. And anyone who claims to be a Christian should be aware of this. Advocates of pure "blind faith" are in error, although I cannot gauge the extent. A faith based on knowledge is going to be more certain than one based on the lack thereof at any rate. (Such Christians are more common in myth than reality, although I've met a couple of persons who might qualify.) I do what I can. I shouldn't have been surprised if I was banned for what I've exposed thus far, but arrogant confidence or some other delusion may be blinding some evolutionists regarding how dangerous truth is to their philosophy.I think you've lost your objectivity if you're seeing lies to the extent you claim from creationists. Surely the Church has been infiltrated, but at this time the situation is nothing close to being that bad. I do not fear much for any soul who loves truth, and I hope there are many who will continue to seek it with an open mind. As I explained, I am of the opinion that we don't have sufficient evidence. And even if his interpretation is slightly off, those who will not receive the love of truth are on pretty shaky ground.For your side, God doesn't say He's going to treat every last one of those individuals in that manner. So claiming the application of these specific delusions happened to an individual requires evidence. I don't know how much evidence CFO has. I think any Christian should be happy to see evidence that CFO is mistaken, should it arise. For the first, you're not seeing what I'm seeing. And truth cannot intrude into the political sphere. Any attempt to politicize issues of truth is a trespass on the part of the political, for they have no business opposing truth. [There are sure plenty working to keep truth from 'intruding' into the political sphere in another sense!]Regarding the second, you're comparing apples to oranges. I am clumbsy with this argument and haven't employed it much. I have a friend who's much more competent with it. I may do better sticking to things I'm more familiar with.

Yes, as I said the Church has been infiltrated since New Testament times, so there are plenty of phonies around. Look at the epistles and see how many errors had to be corrected in the early churches.God allows this, and knows how to deal with the problem.Satan on the other hand, is behind it. He either tries to convince people the phonies are real, or (when they're discovered) convince everyone they've done a lot more damage than they actually have.I've wondered on occasion what sort of people he recruits. When I was a teenager some of my friends maintained he'd only be able to recruit dummies; but I always thought he'd do what he could to gain the loyalties of highly talented people. Who wants an incompetent army?But infiltration is a special mission. I'd expect there'd be a lot of chances for the infiltrators to find the truth.I think those most vulnerable to being fooled are the ones who look to another to provide doctrine rather than studying the Bible for themselves. Naturally one needs help, but the emphasis must alway be learning what the Bible says with the help of others - not the other way around.

CTD writes:

quote:

---

Satan on the other hand, is behind it. He either tries to convince people the phonies are real, or (when they're discovered) convince everyone they've done a lot more damage than they actually have.

---

And how do you know that Satan isn't behind the whole thing? If you're willing to admit that all those others are "phonies," what makes you think you haven't been suckered, too?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

It is commonly maintained that God cannot love sinners and at the same time intend to punish them. It is also maintained these days that a parent cannot correct a child, and to do so constitutes abuse.

---

Nonsense. Correction of a child is never considered abuse.Violence or cruelty towards a child is considered abuse.Would you consider eternal damnation in a lake of fire to to have much corrective value, since once the sinner is there, they have no hope of ever getting out to demonstrate that they have learned from the "correction"?What you are describing is punishment, not correction or teaching.

quote:

---

Both of these claims are false. Love requires a parent to do what's best for the child.

---

When is it ever "best" for a child to be eternally, cruelly punished with no hope of being able to demonstrate doing better in the future? Sounds more like a sick, dysfunctional relationship than that of a loving, instructive parent.

I am trying to follow your logic here and I hope I am not taking these quotes out of context. Ok, so God is very merciful. Now here is where my confusion sets in and why I began to doubt the existance of God...well at least the all-knowing-all-powerful God.Let's take it from the point of view of making a sale. God, the salesman, has the ultimate product...eternal life and happiness. Now, everyone may not think His product is all that good or that He even has that product to sell.
(ok...I know you say it is a gift, but action has to be taken to accept it, so convincing us that it is a gift worth receiving is important).However, God knows everything about his customers...likes, dislikes, all the buttons that can be pushed to convince them or motivate them. Why doesn't He always make a sale?
Even if the mark...uh...customer...is not convinced by anything other than repeatable evidence, God should be able to convince them of His existance and the worth of His product. The fact that He doesn't seem to try to convince even the majority of people gave me one of my reasons for not believing that the omni-everything God even existed.Either He doesn't exist, He is lying when He says that He wants everyone to be saved, or He is not all powerful or all knowing. How does this fit in with a merciful God? No matter when it happens, it makes no sense for God to make anyone believe a lie, especially one that permenantly turns them from being saved.
The Bible itself shows God to be a liar or a schizophrenic personality....neither of which I would want to serve. If God plans on sending lies, then how do you know He isn't lying when He says that eternity will be so great.So who is really the "father of lies"?

It was the Great Infiltrator himself who wrote most of the epistles, often causing more confusion than he corrected. The people I was speaking of tend to be those who take Paul's words over Jesus'.But that's another topic. Jesus said, "By their works ye shall know them." That test isn't so easy to corrupt. He recruits creationists, homophobes, racists... in general, the ignorant, the hateful and the fearful. That's what I said. Those who do study the Bible usually see past the trite over-simplifications of the fundamentalist.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

LinearAq Sure, and why not twist their arms until the give in, huh? Might as well. It all goes back to free will. For whatever reason, God prefers thinking people to robots. I see no call to second guess Him on this preference. At any rate, considering the sacrifice He made, He takes it very seriously.This attitude of entitlement sickens me. Nobody is entitled to be forced into heaven. You want to blame God for your own decision? How arrogant is that? "Mark"? You give away too much information. You're assuming God is imaginary. This is why you assume individuals can each customize their own fantasies. It also accounts somewhat for your arrogance. You think you're smarter than "fantasy god". But your own "fantasy god" doesn't even understand free will, so you've got some catching up to do in one department.And next you maintain that you have the right to dictate what evidence is acceptable. You weren't created with a lame-o mind incapable of processing other types of evidence, so stop being lazy and start thinking. It fits perfectly. The mercy is fully in play the whole time. It consists of providing a way. God has given you everything you have. He owes you nothing. How is He going to respond to continual mockery? He's seen many men tortured and killed, in order to preserve the message of salvation for you. He is a loving God and loves each and every one of them. They are mocked as well. Doesn't love require Him to be angry?How many times has He spared you already? How many more chances DOES HE OWE YOU? Although I don't attribute it to God, I'd you are deluded if you think your excuse'd be worth the air to speak it.See, you think God has to just kill a man and get it over with when the piddley little runt defies Him and provokes his anger. Wrong number!And just why would you turn away the love of truth anyhow? Just how much enjoyment did you get out of those sentences? Try this: next time you're planning on having a good time sinning, take note ahead of time how much you expect to enjoy it. Then ask yourself the next day how it matched up. Experiments like that can be real eye-openers. Scientifically, sin sucks.Here's another one for you to consider: if there is any God, how are you even going to open your mouth on Judgement Day? Won't you fear to make the situation worse by offering excuses like that, which you know are unsound? "Oh yes, I would've believed if you forced me to! That's not fair! Buy me a Playstation!"But no. No Playstation for you. The TV shows something else: a humble man being tortured and nailed to a cross. The show lasts for hours, and when it's over He approaches in person, nailprints and all. What do you say then?I don't care to hear your thoughts. Save your mockeries, and try to come up with a better excuse.

Since we are at the magic number I will summarize my thoughts.It was suggested that Crash was purposefully deluded by a loving and just God. Delusion is the keeping of false beliefs in spite of invalidating evidence. Some supposed scriptural support was provided.I see no signs of delusions in Crashfrog's posts. On the contrary the theist I see here are exhibiting outward and observable signs of delusions.

Beliefs in the reality and veracity of ancient myths of which there are copious amounts of invalidating and falsifying evidence.

​

Statements claiming to know the mind of God and just who is condemned and who is not.

​

unrelenting misinterpretation and invention of extrapolated meanings of religious passages and ignoring the usual rules of grammar and reading comprehension.

I hope that it isn't too late to add an interesting tidbit of information.Yesterday, Wikipedia had a link to Silma Ihram on its front page.

quote:

---

Ihram became a 'born-again' Christian in 1968, and participated in missionary work with the Children's Special Service Mission (CSSM) in the late 1960s and early '70s.

​

In 1976, during an extended trip to Indonesia, Ihram had a "personal revelation that I had to become a Muslim" and converted to Islam, changing her name to 'Silma Ihram'.

---

I don't know anything else about Ms. Ihram other than what's written in this article, but we seem to have another example of a "Born Again" Christian that didn't stick with the Christian faith (although in this case, she traded it for another religious faith).But I suppose that there will be those who will insist that her initial "born again" experience wasn't genuine.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

1. How is convincing someone of the value in serving God considered twisting their arm or making them robots?2. What aspect of God providing strong unambiguous evidence of His reality to the world negates our free will?3. Did Satan have free will when he rebelled against God or was he without free will since he had direct knowledge of God's existance?4. In light of the fact that Jesus supposedly knew that He was going to be raised from the dead and be at God's right hand forever, how was his going to the cross such a big sacrifice? Sure it hurt but all of us go through some pain for some gain. He provides us a way of salvation, professing that He does not wish for any to perish, and then makes some believe that the salvation He provided is not real...and you say that fits with a merciful God?His love does not require Him to be angry if His followers are tortured and killed. His mercy and His requirement that we forgive others their trespasses, require Him to be forgiving. For him to be unforgiving and angry makes a mockery of his mercy and removes our need to forgive others to please Him. First, you have not shown that I have turned away from the love of truth. Interestingly, many seekers of truth don't come to the same conclusion about God that you do, despite their sincerity in the quest. I am one of those.Further, I don't usually go around planning "sin" like some kind of engineering project. I also don't see some actions/thoughts as sin while you might.Next time you go to a healing prayer meeting, why don't you make a list of all the healings you want to occur. Then check it out in the next week or month or year, and see how successful it was. That can be an eye-opener also. I am sure you keep a prayer log...I did.
Strange that no matter how altruistic my prayers, they rarely had positive result. Oh look! Pascal's Wager! I am so very surprised!What will you say when the Great I Am asks "Why did you fall for that nut case who said he was my begotten son? Don't you know there is only one God?As an aside, since you claim to follow Christ's teaching, do you feel that belittling and insulting someone who is misdirected, is the best way to follow that teaching? Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Your misstatement of the case gives it away. You're not interested in truth. The Bible doesn't say God is going to just up & "make some believe" He or His salvation aren't real. You said

quote:

---

"However, God knows everything about his customers...likes, dislikes, all the buttons that can be pushed to convince them or motivate them. Why doesn't He always make a sale?"

---

You maintain that He should practice psychological manipulation to such an extent that He gets a positive result in every single case. There's no free will in that. It's just an inefficient method of manufacturing zombies.God would still be merciful if He only gave us one shot at forgiveness and made us work like coal miners for 800 years to earn it. Even then He'd be merciful if He made us solve puzzles & riddles up to the limit of our intelligence as another requirement. He doesn't owe us anything. That's the point you're missing in your posts. Talk is cheap. You need to start behaving like a sincere seeker of truth.God's love and mercy are amply demonstrated at the cross. You seem to forget God's justice. His justice required that Jesus must suffer the full punishment and misery due for all the sins of mankind, a burden we cannot even begin to conceive.You want to argue that Satan's innocent? You want to argue that God owes sinners an automatic pass to paradise? You're capable of figuring these things out; but you'll have to start looking for truth rather than looking for bogus excuses to slander God.Atheists have already compiled lists of hundreds of bogus arguments against God. You don't have to think them up on your own, you know. But I can tell you right now they won't bring satisfaction. And when you use them, you'll not easily convince anyone you're sincerely searching for truth. Quite the opposite in most cases.