Existence of God

Hello Psyiko:I'm a fundamentalist Christian YEC and I must begin by saying that you are misrepresenting us and God.If you truly want some answers, I'll try to help. Personally I would prefer answering you on a one-on-one format (email) since this type of format is open to scoffers/skeptics and this often distracts from a genuine search for answers. But I'll give it a shot and hope that they don't get too wacky.Your first question was : "if you have unconditional love for a person, and are all forgiving, how can you send someone you love to hell to suffer eternally?"The core of your question involves a seeming contradiction between all-loving, all-forgiving and punishment for all-eternity.There is no contradiction, you are merely committing a common mistake : failing to take into account ALL of the attributes of God. Yes, God is loving and merciful, but He is also righteous and just. He is also incompatible with sin. He has also told us that the wage for sin is 'death'.God must be all things that He is without ceasing to be any of them. Would He remain God if He loved us but did not eradicate sin from amongst us? Absolutely not.These are spiritual principles but they have earthly analogies. If we break (human) laws there are negative consequences (fines... prison... even death). The stakes are much higher in the spiritual realm and, the fact is, we can't 'pay the fine'. Fortunately for us, He is merciful and has given us the way to salvation - Jesus Christ. But then many people reject that path. Would you blame God for this? Many people do!Jorge[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-12-2003]

Why do we need to be saved, Joralex? Because sin has separated us from God and without God only eternal death awaits.And how is Jesus the way? Explain this to me, in detail. "In detail"? Get real - we'd be here for the next several years.

​

Concisely, 'Jesus is the way' - the only way - because God's plan (prepared before the foundation of the world) was to supply mankind with the only possible answer to our sin. Atoning for sin demands two things: a genuine heart-filled repentance and total restitution ("payment"). We are capable of the former but not of the latter since only a perfect restitution is acceptable to God. Hence Jesus Christ.

​

These are spiritual principles and, frankly, the unbeliever neither understands nor accepts them.I would say that people cannot blame anything on an entity that they don't believe exists in the first place. This looks like a general, unfounded assertation. You haven't seen/heard what I have. In my many years at this I've lost count of the times where unbelievers openly state that "they cannot believe in a God that would do such and such" - a perverted circular reasoning if ever there was one.

​

But regarding your statement, logically you are correct - e.g., I don't believe in Santa Claus so I wouldn't blame Santa for any misfortune that came my way. However, you've missed the point. Refer to the first two posts by Psyiko and try again. I also don't think Psyiko is mis-representing Christians here, He has.and you have not shown why you think otherwise. I have - see my first post to Psyiko.The Christian god has many contradictions, SEEMING contradictions. With enough study they vanish.if the bible is to be believed Think for a second, will you... do you HONESTLY believe that if the Bible did, in fact, have "many contradictions" that countless millions of people throughout history - including some of our smartest people ever such as Isaac Newton - would have remained believers in the Bible until they died? Would that make any sense?(although I admit that my knowledge of the bible is limited, Thank you for your honesty here.and others here could answer that question with more confidence). Maybe "with more confidence" but they'd still be wrong.

​

Joralex

Then I would suggest not listening to fundamentalists. Careful, Brother Mike - not all fundamentalists are alike, you know.

​

Nonetheless, it is not the fundamentalist but God Himself that tells us that we are either saved unto eternal life (and through Jesus Christ) OR we are condemned to eternal death.

​

Scripturally, there is no third option.

​

Now, surely you are not disputing this, are you?

​

My point : don't kill the messenger! We are commanded to spread the 'Good News' that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ but this doesn't mean that the consequences for rejecting this Gospel cannot also be divulged. Christ did it - shall not we also?

​

BTW, this does NOT include judging people for only Christ is able to judge us.

​

Joralex

I too am sorry for saying 'easy path'. But it hurts also when people speak ill of my faith. You were right the first time, Mike - easy path! It is always the easiest path to follow what our own thoughts would have us do - whether this be following Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Santa Claus, ourselves, or whatever.

​

The difficult path is always - for any of us - to follow something that is against our personal desires. Thus Christ repeatedly said to us that he that will follow Him must "die, be born again, and take up a cross".

​

The "die" refers to giving up our former self - the worldly person. The "born again" refers to a new creature in Christ living not any longer for only himself but rather for the service of Christ. The "cross" refers to the incredible hardships that this entails - hardships that are unparalleled by anyone choosing to simply follow his own path.

​

Social rejection such as the Rock Hound expresses is a piece of cake when one has the comfort of doing his/her own thing. How about being rejected AND having an internal war (the flesh versus the spirit) raging at all moments - a war that offers not a moment of peace? There is no comparison of hardships between the two - they are parsecs apart. Conclusion : rejecting Christ is the EASY way out.'I don't care about what Christians consider to be sin;'Absolutely fair. Neither do I and I'm Christian. Brrrrrrr...

​

If it pleases God, I want to know about it and to learn more so as to do it.

​

If it displeases God, I also want to know about it so as to NOT do it.

​

Do we get to define Christianity in our own image? Is that how it works?'I don't want to discuss my beliefs.'That's fine. You wont find me attacking anyones beliefs. Glad you people agree - you may count me out of your happy agreement, of course.

​

The point is not to "attack" anyone's beliefs - the point is to attempt to lead people to the CORRECT belief so that they may be saved. Of course, if a person believes that they "need no salvation" then so be it. Such people are definitely to be left alone - salvation cannot be forced on anyone, it must be deeply desired.

​

Joralex

I thought this was a fundie. Okay maybe I should have said 'a fundamentalist who judges you.' - I am a bit confused when it comes to fundamentalists, I am not sure what they are. 'Fundamentalists' are people, just as anyone else, and we have the same attributes, weaknesses and faults that any other person may have.

​

If you're "not sure what they are" then may I suggest that you not speak of us in a stereotype fashion as if "all" fundamentalists had the same thoughts / did the same things... I assure you, we don't.

​

And, no, I have not forgotten that we are on the same side - I did refer to you as "Brother Mike", did I not?

​

Joralex

I dunno. Were they also relying on logical fallacies? Why must people such as yourself always look for the negative side of anything said? Does it provide you with some sort of perverted pleasure? Does it make you feel smart?

​

The point wasn't an appeal to authority or to numbers but the fact that it doesn't add up that countless individuals - well educated and intelligent - would say, "Yes, the Bible has many contradictions and I know this but I'm going to pretend that there aren't any, continue believing in the Bible as if there weren't any, and I'll do this until I die."

​

There is no way that you or anyone can explain such a preposterous notion. The only reasonable alternative is that these alleged contradictions aren't as authentic as you think them to be. How much/in depth have you studied this subject?

​

Joralex

Merely your opinion. You ask for an answer and come back with "merely your opinion"? Uggghhhh...

​

It's far more than "merely my opinion" - it's what God Himself has revealed to us in His Word. Of course, you already know this.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Jesus is the way' - the only way - because God's plan (prepared before the foundation of the world) was to supply mankind with the only possible answer to our sin. Atoning for sin demands two things: a genuine heart-filled repentance and total restitution ("payment"). We are capable of the former but not of the latter since only a perfect restitution is acceptable to God. Hence Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But what if Mohammed is 'the way'? What about Krishna? Or any other religious figurehead? These that you mention are, upon close examination, discovered to be bankrupt. How far have you studied other religions? You say you were once a Christian - didn't you learn enough of Jesus Christ to realize that no other "religious figurehead" even comes close to matching Jesus? I mean, we're not even in the same galaxy with your comparisons.I asked those questions to illustrate a point - that whether or not we need to be saved, and whether or not Jesus is the way etc. means nothing to some one who is not a Christian. Boy, did you ever miss the big boat! It doesn't matter whether you believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Bible - They remain nonetheless. Does your arrogance extend to the point of thinking that just because you choose not to believe in Jesus Christ that He is simply going to go "Poof", and vanish in a puff of smoke?

​

Here's a lesson that you obviously must've slept through as a Christian :
Belief is nothing if it isn't founded on Reality. You can believe in Santa Claus but that isn't going to make ol' Santa pop into existence. Likewise, you can choose to not believe in God but that doesn't make Him disappear.This is the same thing I said to Mike - why should I have to listen to some one tellling me that I'm going to hell when I'm not a member of their religion, don't believe in their god and am completely indifferent to their religious teachings? You have a point here - you are free to believe or to not believe whatever you want.

​

Many a person has said, "I don't believe in hell."
So be it - they can end up in hell just the same. Again, belief must be founded on Reality, not on personal desire. It is easy to understand why many people would not want for there to be a hell. If I were them, I'd be hoping for the same thing.As an unbeliever, I think I understand what you are trying to say perfectly. I was a Christian once, remember, so I understand your viewpoint. Great - you have an advantage over those that never knew Him. Keep seeking and He will answer, all in due time.

​

Joralex

Yes, the line does indeed cut both ways. Let's see...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it doesn't add up that countless individuals - well educated and intelligent - would say, "Yes, the Bible has many contradictions and I know this but I'm going to pretend that there aren't any, continue believing in the Bible as if there weren't any, and I'll do this until I die."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------However, you seem to believe that it makes perfect sense that we evolutionists do the exact same thing by subscribing to a theory that is manifestly untrue. If we're so adept at self-delusion and insulating ourselves from the Truth, why can't the same be said for believers? Evidence, my learned friend, evidence. Setting aside all metaphysical foundations (for just a second), what is the best inference that the evidence points to?

​

BTW, did you mean "manifestly untrue" above or was that a Freudean slip? quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reasonable alternative is that these alleged contradictions aren't as authentic as you think them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Could it likewise be true that the contradictions and flaws you see in the theory of evolution by natural selection are the result of your wishful thinking? "Could it be"? Yes. Is it? NO! Why? See above (evidence).

​

Employing your own phrase, 'the line cuts both ways'. If you're going to base your decision on a logical, scientific basis then DO SO! You cannot selctively employ logic and evidence to arrive at the conclusion that you desire. This is intellectually dishonest and you are fooling no one but yourself.

​

Logically and empirically the best inference is an intelligent, purposeful Creator - God.

​

Joralex

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, it is not the christian calling you a sinner, because he too is sinful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, right.In theory, perhaps, but not in practice. There are many people that have made and shall continue to make mistakes in these matters. Why do you insist on focusing on the mistakes rather than on the truth?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My only duty is to tell you that God says you are a sinner. That is the whole point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, mike, but this is kind of amusing.The problem you have is, depending upon which Christian you talk to, or one's own personal interpretation of the Bible, a person may or not be a sinner with regards to certain attitudes or behaviors or what have you. There are countless "personal interpretations" that are very wrong. Again, why do you insist on focusing on those? I'll propose an answer to that : by focusing on the negatives, you consider yourself justified in your decision to reject Jesus Christ.Were the Christians who killed "infidels" during the Crusades doing God's work? They certainly thought so. That is a personal, one-on-one matter between each person and God. Some of them may have been 'doing God's work'. Some of them may have been pursuing personal objectives for wealth or power. Some of them may have felt compelled to obey the king. Some of them may have been looking for adventure. Etc...

​

There are umpteen possible reasons yet you wish to encapsulate them all into one "wrong" category. Why?Were the Christians who pointed to the parts of the bible which explain the worth and treatment of slaves in order to justify the owning of slaves not simply following the bible selectively? 'Christian' means a 'follower of Christ'. If a man wishes to unjustly exploit another human being then that man is not following Christ but rather his own goals.

​

OTOH, we are all 'slaves' - the only question is, what/who are we slaves of? Under the proper conditions, a form of 'slavery' is acceptable to God. Of course, mankind has perverted those conditions into what we commonly know as 'slavery' - an abomination to God. I sincerely doubt you'll understand this.Are the Christians who own lots of material goods and persue power and riches interpreting the bible rather opposite to Jesus' directives? Based on what I've posted here so far, what do you think the answer is?

​

If you insist on focusing on the negatives then that is exactly what you'll find. You need to ask yourself why you wish to do that. I propose : 'self-justification'.

​

Joralex

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, it is not the fundamentalist but God Himself that tells us that we are either saved unto eternal life (and through Jesus Christ) OR we are condemned to eternal death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Funny, I can find dozens of Christian denominations which do not hold this view to be true. Please, don't be naive. As you, I can find "Christian" denominations that also believe that same-sex marriages are okay or that abortion is okay or that Christ was not born of a virgin or that Christ did not resurrect in body as well as in Spirit or many other anti-Scriptural things. You need to get your facts straight.Why should I believe you and not them? Simple - because we can give a consistent, Scripturally-supported account whereas people such as, say, the Mormons or the Jehova's Witnesses cannot do so.

​

If you really want to know more you may email me.

​

Joralex

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think for a second, will you... do you HONESTLY believe that if the Bible did, in fact, have "many contradictions" that countless millions of people throughout history - including some of our smartest people ever such as Isaac Newton - would have remained believers in the Bible until they died? Would that make any sense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, of course I HONESTLY believe this. Of course, it is your prerogative to believe whatever you want. You may also be wrong, if that is your wish.The thing that you forget is that fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, YEC Protestant Christians are a very small minority among all Christians, and an even more miniscule minority among all religious people. I never forget it and if I should ever forget I always have people like you reminding me of the fact.

​

Yet YOU seem to forget these matters are not a numbers game. If 25 of the most prominent Nobel Prize winners came to my house and told me that God didn't exist, how much worth do you think I'd place on their opinion? Let me give you a hint : it wouldn't be enough to buy a stale doughnut.There are many, many more Christians who use the Bible as a poetic spiritual guide Yup... right you are. So, does that mean they're correct in so doing?
Why do you choose to believe that these people are 'okay' and yet I'm not?rather than as a literal history or science book, as you seem to. Nope... wrong you are. The Bible was never meant to be a history or science Book. There is some history and science, but it's role is definitely not priority one. OTOH, there is enough there so as to validate the Bible's authenticity.Here are some very interesting statistics regarding the stance on inerrancy of the bible of a number of the major Christian sects/denominations in the US.http://www.cesame-nm.org/...ontributions/bible/position.htmlOf those denominations surveyed, membership in churches not demanding a belief in inerrancy outnumbers membership in those that do by more than 2:1. Membership in churches professing belief in inerrancy is 15% of total U.S. population. The actual number of members accepting this belief is expected to be lower, because there are typically more church members who tend to accept a less rigid stance, than those professing a more rigid posture than their church's official position. So, you are going to risk the destiny of YOUR eternal soul on some 'statistics', is that about the size of it?

​

I hope you won't mind if I base MY eternal destiny on something quite a bit more substantial than this, thank you.

​

Joralex

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to base your decision on a logical, scientific basis then DO SO! You cannot selctively employ logic and evidence to arrive at the conclusion that you desire. This is intellectually dishonest and you are fooling no one but yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The verdict you pass upon others will be the one passed against you." Matthew 7:2 Speaking of which...

​

... there are few things more despicable than a non-believer selectively quoting Scripture in order to support his/her position.

​

Excuse me while I puke.

​

Joralex

What is the evidence you refer to? I have long held the view that if a person must ask this question then that person is too far gone for me to help.I only ask because to this point I've only seen assertions from you, no evidence, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps we're using different definitions of evidence. Over the years I've become convinced that most Naturalists haven't given the subject of 'evidence' more than a passing thought.Do you think saying something like "The evidence for a divine creator is all around us" constitutes evidence? Absolutely not. It is the actual evidence that is all around us that supports the existence of a purposeful Creator - not the mere act of saying so.

​

Joralex

The concept 'god' comes from one of two things (IMO).
Either:i) Contact between some 'primitive' or 'unsophisticated' society
and a 'sophisticated' or 'technologically advanced' one. Technology
sufficeintly advanced is indistinguishable from magic. You are here making an assumption that you cannot empirically prove in any way (i.e., the assumption is metaphysical in nature).ii) Failure to comprehend an explanation for something.Theoretically a god is a possibility -- but I see no evidence for
one. Many of the things previously attributed to god(s) are
now understood.This trend of discovery has gone on for centuries, and I see
no end to it -- and consequently no need to resort to god(s). So, you are using the highly fallacious argument that our being able to understand/explain things eliminates the existence of God.

​

Lessee... when I was born I didn't even know what the concept of a number was, let alone how to use them. Today I "understand" enough about numbers that I can do all sorts of things with them. So, does that understanding eliminate the existence of all those that created the mathematical system that we have today?

​

Understanding something doesn't do squat towards eliminating the Creator of that something. Besides, who do you think gave you the mind/intellect that enables you to learn?

​

There's more but no need to go on for now.

​

Joralex

"You see, unlike you, I base my view of what is real in the world on evidence, rather than what I would like to be true. Crazy, isn't it?" Allow me to modify your statement so as to reflect what I believe is really going on with people such as yourself, Rei :"You see, I base my view of what I believe is real in the world on selective evidence, thereby creating what I would like to be true. Crazy, isn't it?" Yes, it is crazy!

​

Joralex