People - I /was/ a Christian

iceage How hard is this to figure out? Let's count, shall we?1.) CFO has no right to "condemn" anyone - that right is reserved for iceage (In context, not a Christian = condemned)2.) I have maintained that there are persons to whom it wouldn't normally be correct to describe as 'christians'.http://EvC Forum: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution -->EvC Forum: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution3.) iceage has attempted to argue against me. (post 226)4.) iceage says CFO is not a 'christian'.There is indeed very little fixity of language in someone's world!It's more entertaining than even his argument from post 279 of this thread 1.) Such a person might well be expected to be unaware they'd been fooled.2.) If they were aware, they just might not be in a big hurry to bring it up3.) Is it a coincidence that iceage mentions 'Signs, wonders, visions, miracles, lying' wonders while omitting to mention 'false doctrines' (unless they're included in the "etc.")? I don't think so. When false doctrines enter the picture, his argument is obviously even weaker.In my opinion the verses under discussion are prophetic and refer to the time of the Antichrist. But there's no obvious reason God must confine the strong delusions to those days if some in other times manage to meet the qualifications.I did have somewhat to comment on the original topic. In my experience, Christians who "fall away" do so for one reason in the vast majority of cases: they mistakenly blame God for suffering and/or death. They fail to understand the eternal nature of existence and God's capacity to make things right in the "end"(eternity has no actual end).I noticed that statistically, the group here is extraordinary in that it lacks a representative in this category. I will say flat out that I believe we have at least one case of fraud present. There are other specific reasons, but I don't plan on pointing out individuals.I recommend that readers bear in mind the common deceitful practices of evolutionists, and of the internet community overall. Take a good critical look at these stories before swallowing them, and do not be easily swindled. The "insider view" of Christianity they'd sell you may well be pure imagination.Real Christians attempt to follow the Bible. They fail, and have shortcomings; but they try. They do not intentionally misinterpret or misrepresent the Bible. But as you can see from 2 Thessalonians 2:7, there have been imposters at work from the beginning. Judas Iscariot is another example, but we have a link nice & handy.The presence of imposters does not mean there are no real Christians, any more than the presence of counterfeit money means there is no real money. Same deal with Bibles and counterfeit bibles.Indeed, the presence of counterfeits is a strong indicator that there exists something real to copy, and motives for doing so.Because there are motives, this translates into other forms of opposition (not everyone is cut out for infiltration). Nothing has been opposed as fiercely as God's Truth. Nothing is even close. On that basis one expects it to be either totally wrong or totally right (otherwise those who oppose would have some higher priority).

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.

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.

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.

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.

iceage I cut & pasted what he said right out of post 294.Thanks for clarifying your intentions, BTW.

iceage You saw what happened. He poses a question. In order for the question to have any meaning, God must exist in that context. Then he lets on that he thinks those who believe God are chumps.In any context where God is real, the chumps aren't the ones who believe Him. But he's gotta take cheap shots.He can't even manage to talk the talk.