Does God Love the Atheist?

[epronovost]

My answer is that both are ridiculous questions I can't take seriously.

Than why did you ask a question to get precision? If you find someting ridiculous either don't participate or state it outright if that is your opinion. I don't particularly enjoy being a prop for your theatrical disdain.

 

[Kenny]

Thank you.

As an atheist, why would I believe your scriptures?

As a liberal Christian, why would I believe your interpretation of the scripture?

As any other kind of theist, why would I believe in your scripture and your interpretation/understanding of what God does?

If I did believe in some kind of universal omnimax deity who created and cares for each and every one of us really and truly, hesheitthem understands why people don't believe in him, and still forgives them, because hesheitthem is loving and forgiving.

But that's just my belief...or would be, if I believed in such a deity...

We all have minds that can think. We have great minds that have wanted to show scriptures are not reliable and ended up believing. We have great minds who have decided not to believe. Each to his own thinking processes and why they came to that conclusion is strictly between them and God.

I agree with you that God does forgive. He is loving. I think the reference that I was making and the context was, "What happens when a person voluntarily decides against God and declares himself an atheist. Not someone who is working through a process.

IMV, You can't force someone to love a person (or God) and you can't force someone to live with a person (or God) if they don't want to. I believe God respects our decision and will.

Who decides when that happens? Certainly not me.

Why do I personally believe?

1. The harmony of the Bible written by dozens of people in which some didn't know what the other wrote.
2. The prophetic reliability
3. The message
4. An empty tomb.
5. And what happened to me after I accepted Jesus

But that is me. Someone else like J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective, approached it by that venue. Lee Stobel approached it as an investigative journalist. Each has their own reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

Aren't G-d's unblemished attributes manifest in the Universe, no other conscious being has/ can claim that with reasonable arguments? I therefore understand that it is most inappropriate to deny G-d.
Right, please?

Regards
_____________
One may like to read First Argument, on page 1-10 from the following:
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

What God is being denied? The creator of the universe. Even if such a being does exist why should we think they want anything from us? Especially belief.

Messengers, right? Your hand-picked few which you accept had the authority to speak for God. People I didn't know. People I have no reason to trust. Nor the people who wrote the words that was claimed they said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even though the atheist has either chosen not to believe or outright reject God.

Depends on each god-believer's attitude toward atheists.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

• The harmony of the Bible written by dozens of people in which some didn't know what the other wrote.

• The prophetic reliability

• The message

• An empty tomb.

• And what happened to me after I accepted Jesus

Why I don't believe:

-The disharmony of the Bibles, plural, written by dozens of people who may or may not have known what the others had written, but was edited by people who DID know what the others had written, and edited to fit, as well as interpreted to fit...

-Prophecies attributed to ancients, but actually written decades and centuries later...when the 'predicted' events had already occurred.

-A message that is not singular nor clear. Even between the Gospels as a set, as well as with the rest of the NT, there is no consistency or clarity.

-A story of an empty tomb, or rather, four stories about an empty tomb, which are incompatible with each other.

-What happened to me after I accepted Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Why I don't believe:

-The disharmony of the Bibles, plural, written by dozens of people who may or may not have known what the others had written, but was edited by people who DID know what the others had written, and edited to fit, as well as interpreted to fit...

-Prophecies attributed to ancients, but actually written decades and centuries later...when the 'predicted' events had already occurred.

-A message that is not singular nor clear. Even between the Gospels as a set, as well as with the rest of the NT, there is no consistency or clarity.

-A story of an empty tomb, or rather, four stories about an empty tomb, which are incompatible with each other.

-What happened to me after I accepted Jesus.

There we have it... two great minds that think differently

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's like a koan.

I like the thinking koans can promote, and the lack of answers. So I'm taking that as a compliment!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists sincerely and honestly follow the evidence.

Not all of us.
I like to think most of us try.

 

[Nakosis]

Depends on each god-believer's attitude toward atheists.

That's what I'm asking for and maybe scripture to back up their opinions would be helpful.

 

[icehorse]

Entitled much?

People who claim that god exists set themselves a VERY HIGH BAR. We atheists didn't set the bar, theists did.

So theists typically tell us that their god is all-knowing, all-powerful, creator-of-the-universe, and...

he provides poor evidence of his existence, and he's cranky when we use the brains he purportedly gave to require good evidence for extraordinary claims?

I don't think that qualifies as being entitled.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

People who claim that god exists set themselves a VERY HIGH BAR. We atheists didn't set the bar, theists did.

So theists typically tell us that their god is all-knowing, all-powerful, creator-of-the-universe, and...

he provides poor evidence of his existence, and he's cranky when we use the brains he purportedly gave to require good evidence for extraordinary claims?

I don't think that qualifies as being entitled.

No, you expect God to love you. That's being entitled.
You're also an atheist and anti-theist which just makes your entitlement hypocritical too.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

There are many positions... but wherever it is, I am glad I am with God and I leave all judgment and the feet of Him that judgeth.

Some think that there is a place of Hell. Some think their spirit/soul are eradicated. Some think we are already in Hell.

Regardless, now is a good time to consider which whom you want to live with or without.

Which do you believe though, do you believe in the fiery place of punishment that people call hell? Is that the place where there is the absence of God that deniers of God get to experience for their denial or rejection of the existence and free gift of God?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Entitled much?

Yeah, why should God love Atheists? Even I don't love them, and I think I have pretty good taste. Why should God have worse taste than me?

 

[Kenny]

Which do you believe though, do you believe in the fiery place of punishment that people call hell? Is that the place where there is the absence of God that deniers of God get to experience for their denial or rejection of the existence and free gift of God?

Quite frankly, I am in the process of studying it since there are two alternatives. Either eternal hell or simply annihilation.

The problem I find is that Jesus never said "Go preach eternal Hell or annihilation" which ends up being a never ending discussion.. Then it turns into "How can a loving God do..." and on and on.

So instead I do what He said "Go preach the Gospel".

So I don't major on the minors but simply preach "For God so loved YOU, that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believes on Him will not perish but have everlasting life".

When you have everlasting life, who cares if there is a Hell or simply annihilation?

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Yeah, why should God love Atheists? Even I don't love them, and I think I have pretty good taste. Why should God have worse taste than me?

Lol good point. Also what is in it for God in loving these atheists, what do they have to offer God?
Are they sexy? intelligent? well God made sexiness and intelligence, so I don't think God needs them for that.

In fact the idea of God loving at all (taken in a literal way) is overall pretty stupid and I don't believe that God literally "loves" anything or anyone, a god that loves is not really God - but rather a created thing, or a polytheistic anthropomorphic deity. Though in our relation to God we could say that those attributes positively apply to our relation with God but not to God itself.

Love is rather a farce, I think, love implies dependence, attraction and need, all of which God is absent of. God is the creator of dependence, attraction and need, God is the creator of love, just as God is the creator of pigs, planets, galaxies and sexual organs. We depend on, are attracted to, and need others, we are the ones who love (and hate, which is another form of love).

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Quite frankly, I am in the process of studying it since there are two alternatives. Either eternal hell or simply annihilation.

The problem I find is that Jesus never said "Go preach eternal Hell or annihilation" which ends up being a never ending discussion.. Then it turns into "How can a loving God do..." and on and on.

So instead I do what He said "Go preach the Gospel".

So I don't major on the minors but simply preach "For God so loved YOU, that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believes on Him will not perish but have everlasting life".

When you have everlasting life, who cares if there is a Hell or simply annihilation?

True, but there are things in the New Testament which seem to indicate there being an idea of a real Hell state present, which was also a mainstream idea among the Second Temple Jews of the period which Jesus was interacting with, so then there are things like "where the worm dieth not" and talking about the fire and the place of punishment and stuff a few times, and then for all the old Churches and Orthodox and Catholic and the first bunches they seemed to believe in a hell, which seemed to be confirmed also in the ideas that existed among the Second Temple Jews which too Isaiah as referring to a resurrection where people are judged and some get rewarded with an eternal happy existence on the New Earth surface and others are thrown into Gehenna, the rift of wailing or whatever, a real existence of suffering. Anyway, as you continue to study the matter, please let me know what you might end up leaning towards or thinking seems more right to you after you research it more and to your satisfaction. I think somewhere it even says that some people will wish for annihilation but will instead not be able to escape the punishment they earned. Some people also believe and believed that the punishment would only last a certain number of days or a period of time however long and then the people would be released and allowed to be given good things too after they burned off all their punishment time.

 

[icehorse]

No, you expect God to love you. That's being entitled.
You're also an atheist and anti-theist which just makes your entitlement hypocritical too.

You're putting words in my mouth

I don't believe in god, how could I expect anything from him? My comments were directed at theists, who have created erratic, thin-skinned, fictional characters

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

You're putting words in my mouth

I don't believe in god, how could I expect anything from him? My comments were directed at theists, who have created erratic, thin-skinned, fictional characters

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, you literally said:

With all seriousness: IMHO, any god who doesn't love atheists is a jerk.

Hence:

No, you expect God to love you. That's being entitled.
You're also an atheist and anti-theist which just makes your entitlement hypocritical too.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Lol good point. Also what is in it for God in loving these atheists, what do they have to offer God?
Are they sexy? intelligent? well God made sexiness and intelligence, so I don't think God needs them for that.

In fact the idea of God loving at all (taken in a literal way) is overall pretty stupid and I don't believe that God literally "loves" anything or anyone, a god that loves is not really God - but rather a created thing, or a polytheistic anthropomorphic deity. Though in our relation to God we could say that those attributes positively apply to our relation with God but not to God itself.

Love is rather a farce, I think, love implies dependence, attraction and need, all of which God is absent of. God is the creator of dependence, attraction and need, God is the creator of love, just as God is the creator of pigs, planets, galaxies and sexual organs. We depend on, are attracted to, and need others, we are the ones who love (and hate, which is another form of love).

Excellent! I agree totally!

The way I translate or justify this word that I dislike a lot, "Love", is in the Greek etymological meaning of "to give attention to something" which would mean that God is attentive to all things, and those things exist and operate by God's total and complete attention towards them, thinking every moment of their existence into existence moment to moment, but that God certainly is free from any obligation or dependency or attraction to them, and when people use the word "Love" in relation to God, they must quite often be actually implying a kind of attraction or preference, like "God so loved the world" like how we "So love pretty girls" or something, even though they might not admit it. They even say how God really approved of some aroma and stuff, which takes the mind to all sorts of disturbing places, plus then they say "God is watching" and then they are getting naked and having intercourse and stuff, and God is smelling it and everything, which is true even, God is certainly aware of anything they are and even what they are not, and so if there is an experience of smelling, God knows it wholly in every way there might be at all to know it, including from the perspective of whoever dealt it and whoever smelt it, as being the only one who produced that whole ordeal in whatever forms it may exist that moment or any moment, BUTT, God is not a human being, and these novel experiences that God sees and knows are like pieces of art, creations, which God didn't need to make, nor does God need them, nor does God even necessarily prefer anything in the way a human might (basically forced by inclination or conditioning), but at best, God "makes up" a story where "God prefers this, but doesn't need to, God has chosen", and then we are set up into factions who either deny this to be the case or think it is so, never knowing what God will really do, and then finally, God will reveal who dealt it. They say that sulfur burns a lot and smells like farts or otherwise eggy? Like eggy farts? Allah is Perfumer. Who Knows without Nose and Knows Every Nose!

The idea of "giving attention to" came to mean "giving special or particular attention to" and started to mean "preferential attention to" which was generally considered to be due to taste, due to some reasoning or conditioning which makes a King choose a particular child of his or wife of his or domain of his, because of some benefit, pleasure, or enjoyment it gives them. Then that was mopped up a bit and they started saying it means "selfless goodwill", when it almost seemed to mean the opposite of that for a time, as very specifically "personal preference and attention given to something favored" as an extension of just "giving attention to". Anyway, the word irritates me a lot, the way it was used, the way it is used, all of it.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

The Great Daemon of the Qur'an says:
Ayah al-Ma`idah (The Table, The Table Spread) 5:18 at IslamAwakened.com
Proto Indo European *dai-mon- "divider, porovider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide.: