Question

[AMbomb]

So, you want to codify Biblical law. I have a question for you. Can you prove there's such a thing as God? That was rhetorical. Of course you can't. So, you want to codify the laws of a god you can't even prove actually exists. Does this make sense?
I have another question for you. Why wouldn't a god who damns people to Hell for not believing in him prove his existence? If there was such a thing as God, it would be easy for him to erase all doubts of his existence. So, why doesn't he?

[revrosado]

He has. Its all around you. Science gives you the alphabet blocks - you have to put them together. Until you can, you won't understand. So keep - keep - searching. But not for God - for understanding. Once you have understanding you will see.

You cannot see the invisible through the visible. The visible blocks the invisible - it is the nature of things created. But through the understanding of the visible we can know the invisible.

[AMbomb]

He has. Its all around you. Science gives you the alphabet blocks - you have to put them together. Until you can, you won't understand. So keep - keep - searching. But not for God - for understanding. Once you have understanding you will see.

You cannot see the invisible through the visible. The visible blocks the invisible - it is the nature of things created. But through the understanding of the visible we can know the invisible.

First of all, science gives no evidence that there's such a thing as God. Second of all, if there really was such a thing as God and he really wanted us to believe in him, it's logical to assume that he'd do something a lot more dramatic than prove his existence through the laws of science.

[revrosado]

AM Wrote:
First of all, science gives no evidence that there's such a thing as God. Second of all, if there really was such a thing as God and he really wanted us to believe in him, it's logical to assume that he'd do something a lot more dramatic than prove his existence through the laws of science.

My Reply:
Science has many undetermined issues. These undetermined factor's origin and composition are still unknown and some unsupported by our science - they should not exist according to your logic. But they do! Science is understanding - it is not proof! Proof is only the judgement of well reasoned minds concerning elements and factors. So science can never provide proof of anything - it just reflects our understanding of the universe. Some of us are challenged.

Secondly, God is not trying to prove anything. You assume that God has a need to prove this or that. And particularly to your person. He has no need to prove anything to the likes of us if but for His love. Can you prove love? It can be shown, manifest, expressed - but it cannot be proved without it becoming extinguished. Love is a fragile flower that withers because it has given it's all. Some people do good things and do not look for glory or recognition. We applaud such acts of selflessness - is not God higher than we? Why need God be a child and want to strike up the band every time he brings in to existence an AMbomb or a revrosado? Is it not enough that you are? You are the proof - yes you! And it takes a great being to keep silent and not be recognized - even by the ones He most loves.....

Yet I am who I say I am - you are not. You hide and I cannot know you truly. (Your Screen Name) But the problem with hiding is that you cannot see the one looking for you either.

[AMbomb]

AM Wrote:
First of all, science gives no evidence that there's such a thing as God. Second of all, if there really was such a thing as God and he really wanted us to believe in him, it's logical to assume that he'd do something a lot more dramatic than prove his existence through the laws of science.

My Reply:
Science has many undetermined issues. These undetermined factor's origin and composition are still unknown and some unsupported by our science - they should not exist according to your logic. But they do! Science is understanding - it is not proof! Proof is only the judgement of well reasoned minds concerning elements and factors. So science can never provide proof of anything - it just reflects our understanding of the universe. Some of us are challenged.

Secondly, God is not trying to prove anything. You assume that God has a need to prove this or that. And particularly to your person. He has no need to prove anything to the likes of us if but for His love. Can you prove love? It can be shown, manifest, expressed - but it cannot be proved without it becoming extinguished. Love is a fragile flower that withers because it has given it's all. Some people do good things and do not look for glory or recognition. We applaud such acts of selflessness - is not God higher than we? Why need God be a child and want to strike up the band every time he brings in to existence an AMbomb or a revrosado? Is it not enough that you are? You are the proof - yes you! And it takes a great being to keep silent and not be recognized - even by the ones He most loves.....

Yet I am who I say I am - you are not. You hide and I cannot know you truly. (Your Screen Name) But the problem with hiding is that you cannot see the one looking for you either.

If there really was a god who damned people to Hell for not believing in him, it's logical to conclude that he'd provide some dramatic proof of his existence, something that would extinguish all doubt. There is no such proof. Furthermore, it's logical to conclude that he would give us all a genetic predisposition toward spirituality. However, only some people have that.

[jcr4runner]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel.

God doesn't damn people for not believing in Him.

I come from the point of view that God judges us according to our works.

We are not judged for "not believing in Him."

We are judged for the sin of Adam.

We are also judged for every act , every word, every thought.

[AMbomb]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel.

God doesn't damn people for not believing in Him.

I come from the point of view that God judges us according to our works.

We are not judged for "not believing in Him."

We are judged for the sin of Adam.

We are also judged for every act , every word, every thought.

Are you telling me it's possible to go to heaven without believing in God?

[jcr4runner]

Faith in and of itself is a work that God judges us for.

But faith is not our own work but a work that God creates in us.

Non-belief is the natural act of a sinner who suppresses the obvious truth because of his unrighteousness. It is impossible to get saving faith by our own mental assent or effort.

Simply: because you were born in sin, you CANNOT believe in God until God produces faith within you.

The question for the non-believer is, "What do you do with your guilt?"

[AMbomb]

Faith in and of itself is a work that God judges us for.

But faith is not our own work but a work that God creates in us.

Non-belief is the natural act of a sinner who suppresses the obvious truth because of his unrighteousness. It is impossible to get saving faith by our own mental assent or effort.

Simply: because you were born in sin, you CANNOT believe in God until God produces faith within you.

The question for the non-believer is, "What do you do with your guilt?"

That doesn't answer my question.

[jcr4runner]

It's a question that anyone who has spent countless hours arguing with Christians needn't ask.

But here it is again:

No one is "good enough" to get to heaven -- "believing in Jesus" or "not believing with Jesus" is not the criteria that God judges us by.

Each of us is judged by our works which -- whether we think they are "good" or "bad" -- are always just good enough to earn us God's eternal wrath.

Unless God's imputes His own righteousness to us, we cannot be saved.

[AMbomb]

It's a question that anyone who has spent countless hours arguing with Christians needn't ask.

But here it is again:

No one is "good enough" to get to heaven -- "believing in Jesus" or "not believing with Jesus" is not the criteria that God judges us by.

Each of us is judged by our works which -- whether we think they are "good" or "bad" -- are always just good enough to earn us God's eternal wrath.

Unless God's imputes His own righteousness to us, we cannot be saved.

It's a simple yes or no question. Please give me a yes or no answer.

[jcr4runner]

Your line of argument is as usual:

1. "You haven't answered my question."
(When we have.)
2. "Christians cannot be cited because they are not objective."
(Are atheists "objective" then?)
3. "Let me ask you a question."
(One that is based on assumptions that Christians can't agree with.)

And of course you are wrong. I have answered your question.

Are you telling me it's possible to go to heaven without believing in God?

The answer: No, saving faith is required to be saved and get to heaven. But as I explained, your assumptions are wrong. "Believing in Jesus" is not the true biblical definition of saving faith. One may make a mental assent and not have faith.

I have a question for you:

If there is no God, then where do you get your sense of guilt?

[AMbomb]

Your line of argument is as usual:

1. "You haven't answered my question."
(When we have.)
2. "Christians cannot be cited because they are not objective."
(Are atheists "objective" then?)
3. "Let me ask you a question."
(One that is based on assumptions that Christians can't agree with.)

And of course you are wrong. I have answered your question.

Are you telling me it's possible to go to heaven without believing in God?

The answer: No, saving faith is required to be saved and get to heaven. But as I explained, your assumptions are wrong. "Believing in Jesus" is not the true biblical definition of saving faith. One may make a mental assent and not have faith.

I have a question for you:

If there is no God, then where do you get your sense of guilt?

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes answering a question. If there was a god who loved us, but nonetheless required us to believe in him to get into heaven, it would make sense for him to provide dramatic proof of his existence that would extinguish all doubt. There is no such proof. By, the way, you already asked me what I do with my guilt and I already answered it. It's in one of my earlier messages.

[jcr4runner]

You answered my question before. That is correct.

This is a different question: "Where does your sense of guilt come from?"

[AMbomb]

You answered my question before. That is correct.

This is a different question: "Where does your sense of guilt come from?"

From my brain.