Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Then what is his plan for the atheist?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Then what is his plan for the atheist?
Either everyone has the wrong religious belief or we all have the right religious belief.Is there any reason an atheist might be different than any other person of wrong religious belief?
The atheist? There's only one of them?
I can't tell if you're asking me questions or telling me a poem.Either everyone has the wrong religious belief or we all have the right religious belief.
Which is it?
Is yours right and mine wrong?
Is our neighbor even more wrong?
Who decides?
It is part of the plan is the answer.
We chose to have it this way.
There is nothing wrong with the grammar.
I can't comment on that. But it is a phrasing which implies a certain monolithic homogeneity to atheists, when this is in no manner the case.
No, it doesn't. That is just the way you are reading it. At any rate that is not the topic this thread. Do you have anything on topic to contribute?
It seems very much on topic to me.
I am saying that to say 'What is God's plan for the atheist?' doesn't make much sense, because atheists are vastly varying and divergent people. So grouping them together in this manner as if there was a common plan doesn't make sense.
Oh of course grammar is the topic, my mistake.
The eventual liberation/realization is for all sentient beings (including current atheists). (I believe in reincarnation)Then what is his plan for the atheist?
I'm not talking about grammar. You brought up grammar and I said I couldn't comment on it. I have no interest in discussing grammar.
I am not interested in more semantics. Sorry, but that boat gets old.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not talking about semantics.
I can't comment on that. But it is a phrasing which implies a certain monolithic homogeneity to atheists, when this is in no manner the case.
This. . . .
is semantics, and I am simply not doing it. Anyone with a public education can understand the question in the OP, and lots of other people already have interpreted correctly and responded to the actual question. You are hung up on the semantics and the grammar, even if you don't realize it.