Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[Sonofason]

Oh, gosh. It's called unconditional love. That's why jesus let his betrayer sit at his table even though he knew what would happen. It's why jesus did for all sinners not just a few that would turn to him.

God doesn't have unconditional love?

So you believe that John 3:16 is not followed by John 3:17-18?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Do you not see a direct correlation between my petitions to God, and what God intends to do?

As for Paul, I think it well to remember that he had about as much science knowledge compared to what is known today as we may compare a thimbleful to an ocean full. ANd therefore, what was "clearly seen" is only what he invented because he simply didn't know any better.

 

[Acim]

That "Christian perspective" is very perplexing to many of us. And that applies equally well to the Muslim perspective, I think, and probably several others.

As far as I am aware -- from what they say -- the only thing that is absolutely necessary for "salvation" (that, is being invited to live eternally with God) is faith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as saviour. You can do very bad things, but if you don't have that -- tough toenails. You can do very good things, but if you don't have that, tough toenails. Thus, on one point we must be very clear: God doesn't actually care if you do good or bad, only that you believe the right thing.

But, if there's anything we know about the human animal, it is that human children are quite literally programmed to believe their parents, and next their immediate community. They must, or they would not grow up to have children of their own. "Don't put your finger in the socket" or "don't eat the red mushroom" or "don't jump off the roof" are all pretty good ways to help ensure your child grows up to be a parent, too. And that -- whether Christians and Muslims like it or not -- is how evolution works.

So, Christians believe -- and I have had this confirmed by many of them, many times (or been given deeply equivocal answers by Christians seeing the logical trap they're being led into) -- that the child born to a Hindu family, taught from earliest moments by parents, family and community to believe in the gods and tenets of the Hindu religion -- and believing it because he's programmed to -- is, too unfortunately but inevitably -- condemned to eternal punishment. It's not his fault, but sorry, them's the rules.

And those rules are -- apparently -- made by the same God that made the rule "believe your parents." And far too many Christians are blind to the truly essential paradox, nay fatal contradiction, of this. Go ahead, try them. Ask Sonofwhatever to provide a way out of this. You'll see.

Please, do realize that Gnostic Christians do not believe the parts I highlighted. At least this one doesn't. I'd provide different understandings that I realize would make some orthodox types cringe. And I'd rejoice.

 

[Sonofason]

Of course there is!
We know that we are all made of the same substances that are mostly common in the universe! (one for one!!!)
We know that there are thousands of planets that are a viable candidates to support life
We know that there are more stars that we can imagine
We know that life emerged on at least one planet, It will be improbable (to say the least) that life didn't emerge on any other of the Billions of billions of billions other stars!

You have made the claim that we are made of substances that are common in the universe. Indeed, it was from the dust of the earth that God made us.
You have made a claim that thousands of planets could support life. You may be right about that. But I would like to see your list of planets that can support life, and your evidence that each of them can indeed support life.
I will admit, there seems to be a lot of stars.
Yes, we can be quite certain that life has become emergent on at least one planet. I it is quite misguided however to suggest that life could have originated on any of the billions and billions of other stars. Life just doesn't seem to originate on stars. I think the climate on stars pretty much prohibits life from existing on them.

Again, you do not know what caused life to exist here on this earth, so you certainly cannot say where life originates, let alone suggest that you can determine the probabilities of life existing somewhere else.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You must use commentary (I keep telling folks) when you quote scripture. I have read the Bible and these are few of the most commonly quoted scriptures. However, I'm not Christian; so, you'll have to add your opinion not Mathew, John, Mark, and Luke's.

So you believe that John 3:16 is not followed by John 3:17-18?

With that said,

You were telling Evangelical that

"But why do you think it is evil for God to bring only the people He wants in His Kingdom to His future eternal Kingdom? Those of us who love Him are loved by Him. Do you invite people into your life that hate you?"​

And I said...

"Oh, gosh. It's called unconditional love. That's why jesus let his betrayer sit at his table even though he knew what would happen. It's why jesus did for all sinners not just a few that would turn to him."​

I have a couple of questions.

Are you saying that Jesus does not have unconditional love for sinners?
If god didn't invite those who hate to his kingdom, he wouldn't love the world (display unconditional love) for them as in John 3:16.

Here is another verse on unconditional love:

1 John 4:9-11 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

If he does not have unconditional love, why did he take the time to die for you all if you are all sinners?

Why would god invite you into his kingdom when you are a sinner?

He invited those who hate him (unconditional love) by sending his son to save Christians and Christians are the ones who have the choice to deny the invitation not god.

For god so loved the world (invited all even those he hates) so whoever believes in him (accepts his invitation) will have ever lasting life. For god invited all people and whomever accepts his invitation to his kingdom will have ever lasting life.

He invited those who hate him. Christians have a choice to accept or deny his invitation.

17 God did not send his Son into the world to be judge of the world; he sent him so that the world might have salvation through him.

18 The man who has faith in him does not come up to be judged; but he who has no faith in him has been judged even now, because he has no faith in the name of the only Son of God.​

Same thing. God sent him (his son) so the world might have salvation through him. This is the act of unconditional love. Why would he send his son to save people he wouldn't invite to his kingdom because of their sins such as hatred?

18. It has to do with the Christian who choose to have faith (or accept the salvation or invitation) not god. God invited all people. Christians have a choice to accept or deny.

I don't understand this "So you believe that John 3:16 is not followed by John 3:17-18?" They both display unconditional love which your comment about god not allowing people who hate him in his kingdom (aka sinners) is completely opposite of what scripture says.

 

[Sonofason]

You said that the Big Bang - among other things - is evidence for God. This means that we can start with the fact that the Big Bang happened (along with whatever other evidence you need to make your case) and, making logical steps from this, establish that God exists.

Can you do this? If so, then go ahead and do it.

If not, then how is the Big Bang evidence for God?

The Big Bang conforms to the historical Genesis account of creation.

 

[Sonofason]

Are using your brain when asking me this? We've already established that I am an atheist, and that I know for certain that the Bible was composed by humans. So why the heck would I believe any of that stuff -- especially the peculiar and idiotic Revelation (which many in the early church didn't even want in the canon)?

You just can't bring yourself to admit that you, calling yourself Christian, have said something that is most unChristian. You said that you pray often for my quick destruction. Just like Christ: "as you did it to the least of them, you did it to me! Matt 25:31-40

Man up and admit your sin!

So you want to hold me accountable to the teachings contained in a book that was composed by humans that you don't even believe in. Thankfully, I don't have to answer to you.

 

[Sonofason]

As for Paul, I think it well to remember that he had about as much science knowledge compared to what is known today as we may compare a thimbleful to an ocean full. ANd therefore, what was "clearly seen" is only what he invented because he simply didn't know any better.

The same could be said about you. I think it well to remember that you have about as much science knowledge compared to what is known today as we may compare to a thimbleful to an ocean full. Am I wrong? Can someone tell me I'm wrong?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Big Bang conforms to the historical Genesis account of creation.

If you squint a bit at Genesis, maybe.

The Big Bang conforms with the claim that magic pixies used the Big Bang to create the universe. What support does God have that magic pixies don't?

 

[McBell]

The Big Bang conforms with the claim that magic pixies used the Big Bang to create the universe. What support does God have that magic pixies don't?

Um...
Sonofson's?

 

[Shad]

I Would love hearing Atheists POV on the matter..

A label for an entity that only exists within religions and religious disciplines that is completely meaningless once outside these fields.

 

[Shad]

The Big Bang conforms to the historical Genesis account of creation.

Except that after "at the beginning" the details do not match at all.... Earth before the Sun, etc, etc.

 

[Sonofason]

You must use commentary (I keep telling folks) when you quote scripture. I have read the Bible and these are few of the most commonly quoted scriptures. However, I'm not Christian; so, you'll have to add your opinion not Mathew, John, Mark, and Luke's.



With that said,

You were telling Evangelical that

"But why do you think it is evil for God to bring only the people He wants in His Kingdom to His future eternal Kingdom? Those of us who love Him are loved by Him. Do you invite people into your life that hate you?"​

And I said...

"Oh, gosh. It's called unconditional love. That's why jesus let his betrayer sit at his table even though he knew what would happen. It's why jesus did for all sinners not just a few that would turn to him."​

I have a couple of questions.

Are you saying that Jesus does not have unconditional love for sinners?
If god didn't invite those who hate to his kingdom, he wouldn't love the world (display unconditional love) for them as in John 3:16.

Here is another verse on unconditional love:

1 John 4:9-11 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

If he does not have unconditional love, why did he take the time to die for you all if you are all sinners?

Why would god invite you into his kingdom when you are a sinner?

He invited those who hate him (unconditional love) by sending his son to save Christians and Christians are the ones who have the choice to deny the invitation not god.

For god so loved the world (invited all even those he hates) so whoever believes in him (accepts his invitation) will have ever lasting life. For god invited all people and whomever accepts his invitation to his kingdom will have ever lasting life.

He invited those who hate him. Christians have a choice to accept or deny his invitation.

17 God did not send his Son into the world to be judge of the world; he sent him so that the world might have salvation through him.

18 The man who has faith in him does not come up to be judged; but he who has no faith in him has been judged even now, because he has no faith in the name of the only Son of God.​

Same thing. God sent him (his son) so the world might have salvation through him. This is the act of unconditional love. Why would he send his son to save people he wouldn't invite to his kingdom because of their sins such as hatred?

18. It has to do with the Christian who choose to have faith (or accept the salvation or invitation) not god. God invited all people. Christians have a choice to accept or deny.

I don't understand this "So you believe that John 3:16 is not followed by John 3:17-18?" They both display unconditional love which your comment about god not allowing people who hate him in his kingdom (aka sinners) is completely opposite of what scripture says.

Yes, John 3:16 is a call to repentance that is directed at each and every living person on the entire planet. While the invitation goes out to everyone, a very specific promise is given to those of us who actually believe in God's Son. For those of us who believe in God's Son, this verse tells us that we shall not perish but have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

It is true, is it not; that if we believe in Jesus we ought not perish? It seems to me a distinction needs to be made, for the verse does not say that whosoever believes in Jesus shall not perish. It says that they shouldn't perish. Indeed, there are some people who believe in Jesus who shall perish. Satan is one of those individuals. There are also people who know very well that God exists but they hate Him. Does John 3:16 reserve a place in heaven for Satan? I don't think so.

Is it possible to believe in God's Son, yet also hate God?
Is it possible to believe in God's Son, yet not believe what His Son has said?

It seems to me that if you truly believe in someone, you also believe in what they said. How can we honestly say we believe in someone yet not believe anything they've said? If we are truly Christians, if we are truly followers of Christ, we must believe what Christ has said. We must do what Christ commanded us to do. How can we claim to be following someone if we do not do what they command us to do?

Jesus said,
"...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." (Mathew 22:37-38)
Do you really believe you can hate God and remain a recipient of the promise contained in John 3:16?

Not loving God is a breach of God's first commandment. It is a breach of Christ's first commandment.

"God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)
When reading this verse, has it not occurred to you that the words used imply the possibility and even the probability that some people in this world might not be saved? Do you believe that the words "might be saved" are insignificant? Do you believe that the words "might be saved" give as much assurance to non-believers and God haters as the words "shall be saved" could have given them had they been the choice of words used by our author? I believe the words the Apostle John chose to use were chosen because they conveyed the message he wanted to convey most accurately.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned:" (John 3:18 part 1)
Clearly Johns message is conveying a promise for all who believe in God's Son. If you believe in God's Son, that is if you believe what He has said. And If you do what He has commanded you to do, you shall not be condemned.

but,

"...he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " (John 3:18)


If we are to believe John 3:16 we must also accept John 3:18. Christ's offer is to all of us, all sinners, even to those of us who might hate God. John 3:16 does not state that everyone who believes in God shall be saved however. It says that whoever believes in God might be saved. If we are not following Christ, we are already condemned. There is not getting around it. Some people will not be saved. Some people are at this moment in time condemned. There is hope for these people, in that they are not dead yet. They can allow themselves to be turned around. They can still repent from their sins. They can begin following Christ. They can begin to believe in and do what He has commanded them to do, which includes loving God. And if they do, they shall be saved. If they do not, the Word of God is clear, they shall not be saved.

 

[Sonofason]

If you squint a bit at Genesis, maybe.

The Big Bang conforms with the claim that magic pixies used the Big Bang to create the universe. What support does God have that magic pixies don't?

My personal experience and acknowledgement of their existence.

 

[Sonofason]

If you squint a bit at Genesis, maybe.

The Big Bang conforms with the claim that magic pixies used the Big Bang to create the universe. What support does God have that magic pixies don't?

My personal experience and acknowledgement of their existence.

 

[McBell]

If you squint a bit at Genesis, maybe.

The Big Bang conforms with the claim that magic pixies used the Big Bang to create the universe. What support does God have that magic pixies don't?

Um...
Sonofson's?

Woo hoo!
Nailed that one!

My personal experience and acknowledgement of their existence.

 

[Sonofason]

Except that after "at the beginning" the details do not match at all.... Earth before the Sun, etc, etc.

I do not believe that it has been proven that the Sun predates the earth. Neither has been proven that the Bible claims that the earth predates the sun. Either case is pure speculation.

 

[McBell]

The Big Bang conforms to the historical Genesis account of creation.

Except that after "at the beginning" the details do not match at all.... Earth before the Sun, etc, etc.

I do not believe that it has been proven that the Sun predates the earth. Neither has been proven that the Bible claims that the earth predates the sun. Either case is pure speculation.

And you wonder why you are not taken seriously?

 

[Sonofason]

And you wonder why you are not taken seriously?

By all means, present your evidence that the existence of the Sun predates the existence of Earth.

And present your evidence that the Bible makes claim that the planet we call Earth preceded the star we call the Sun.

 

[McBell]

By all means, present your evidence that the existence of the Sun predates the existence of Earth.

And present your evidence that the Bible makes claim that the planet we call earth existed before star we call the Sun.

By all means, please try again with an emphasis on comprehension.

Meaning you missed something last time around.
Instead of giving yet another knee jerk reply that makes you look even more foolish, try figuring out why the above quoted reply makes you look foolish.

Or flat out ask if you cannot see it....