Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Patrick66]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

 

[Revoltingest]

All will become atheists upon death,
ie, believers will stop believing.
We all stop everything.
Well, except for decomposing.
IMO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

Easy. It's your God and demigod. Its not my God nor my demigod.

I don't have a God , and I'm perfectly fine and quite happy and content with the universe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

Do you have an explanation for why some are not permitted to believe in God?

 

[DNB]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

You have some strange theology going on?
It's not their fault? But, it is - what God has chosen to reveal to them is apparent to the theist, but not to them. Go ahead and ask them, they will tell you that they saw the same thing, but offer an entirely different conclusion. They choose to have a perverse look on life.

In the end, some will end up in hell, and others in Christ's Kingdom. Jesus died for a reason - not to allow those who mock him, to receive the same treatment as those who love and worship him (as the human saviour)

 

[F1fan]

I notice there is never a God speaking for itself.

There are many believers who think they resepresent the absent God they think exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I notice there is never a God speaking for itself.

There are many believers who think they resepresent the absent God they think exists.

Yes, but they all speak with a common voice, which is a clear sign that...oh...wait...umm...nevermind.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You have some strange theology going on?
It's not their fault? But, it is - what God has chosen to reveal to them is apparent to the theist, but not to them. Go ahead and ask them, they will tell you that they saw the same thing, but offer an entirely different conclusion. They choose to have a perverse look on life.

Perverse?
That word encompasses a range of meanings, broadly related but meaningfully different. In which sense do you mean it?

In the end, some will end up in hell, and others in Christ's Kingdom. Jesus died for a reason - not to allow those who mock him, to receive the same treatment as those who love and worship him (as the human saviour)

Your God is purportedly the font of free will too. So perhaps He will see that where you see deliberate obstinance and mocking. We'll see, I guess.

 

[Windwalker]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

So you're saying it's not the atheists fault they are spiritually blinded. It is because God has not let them see because he would rather they suffer in blindness. Correct? So is this a game then with God manipulating people for some master plan or something? You don't see a moral problem here?

 

[sun rise]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

God's side is the side of truth and love. I don't see atheists as a group on the other side of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

Have you ever stopped to think that you believe in the wrong version of God?

 

[Valjean]

Why do you say we're on the opposite side from God, and what, exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about different moral beliefs, or ethics, or different social activities, like dietary, behavioral or sartorial restrictions?

First, which side is God on? There are hundreds of different Gods, with hundreds of different positions.
Even within a given religion, there's disagreement about God's position.

How do we know what side God's on? Everyone seems to think He's on their side, or supports their opinions and politics.

Personally, I pretty much support Christian values -- the principles, not the common application I see among Christians.
I find many atheists also support these Christian/humanist values, like tolerance, equality, compassion, coöperation, helpfulness, &c.

So which of these issues are we usually on opposite sides of?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God's side is the side of truth and love. I don't see atheists as a group on the other side of that.

It sounds like you're saying 'judge them by their fruits', basically, right?
I'm fine with that.

 

[F1fan]

So you're saying it's not the atheists fault they are spiritually blinded. It is because God has not let them see because he would rather they suffer in blindness. Correct? So is this a game then with God manipulating people for some master plan or something? You don't see a moral problem here?

I've heard a number of believers claiming this. It's a foolish tactic because it does place all the blame on God, and the appeals of "Godly truth" has no impact.

I can see how this tactic abandons God and aims to relieve the believer from having to argue anything, they are in essence surrendering, admitting defeat with an assault. And they also secure their special status as "Godly", so masquerade a victory that is a loss.

As you note, the odd thing is how this tactic accuses God of tricks, and all accountability for what non-believers don't believe. It's odd that believers think God is justified in anything they decide God does, even if immoral for humans.

 

[Windwalker]

I've heard a number of believers claiming this. It's a foolish tactic because it does place all the blame on God, and the appeals of "Godly truth" has no impact.

I can see how this tactic abandons God and aims to relieve the believer from having to argue anything, they are in essence surrendering, admitting defeat with an assault. And they also secure their special status as "Godly", so masquerade a victory that is a loss.

As you note, the odd thing is how this tactic accuses God of tricks, and all accountability for what non-believers don't believe. It's odd that believers think God is justified in anything they decide God does, even if immoral for humans.

The image comes to mind of a troubled child playing with her Barbie and Ken dolls. She makes Ken hurt Barbie, punching her and kicking her, and then she punishes Ken by turning up the heat to 500 degrees in the gas oven and sticking Ken in it for over an hour.

Who do you think this story is really about? Ken, or the child who orchestrated Ken's bad behaviors in the story of her own making, and her subsequent actions with her toys under her complete control?

 

[DNB]

Perverse?
That word encompasses a range of meanings, broadly related but meaningfully different. In which sense do you mean it?



Your God is purportedly the font of free will too. So perhaps He will see that where you see deliberate obstinance and mocking. We'll see, I guess.

Perverse: corrupted view, inaccurate perception, defiantly denying the obvious, subversive conclusion.

Well, all have free will, and all have drawn different conclusions about the origins of life, morality, racial relations, marriage, etc...
Do you not hold someone accountable who accepts promiscuity as normal and healthy behaviour, or recreational drugs as innocuous, or that the sex trade is a viable vocation, or that their Maker does not exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perverse: corrupted view, inaccurate perception, defiantly denying the obvious, subversive conclusion.

Well, all have free will, and all have drawn different conclusions about the origins of life, morality, racial relations, marriage, etc...
Do you not hold someone accountable who accepts promiscuity as normal and healthy behaviour, or recreational drugs as innocuous, or that the sex trade is a viable vocation, or that their Maker does not exist?

That is a bit contorted At the very end you indicate that you do not understand the burden of proof. In fac the whole post demonstrates that. You do not get to assume that your religious beliefs are true. Don't worry, though I do not assume it, an atheist does not get to assume that a God does not exist.

How do you know if your God is the right God? An empty "I know" is not only worthless, it is self contradictory Knowledge is demonstrable. If one cannot support an "I know" it is clear that that person only has mere belief.

How would you react to a person that had mere belief demand that you obey their version of God?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perverse: corrupted view, inaccurate perception, defiantly denying the obvious, subversive conclusion.

As you yourself pointed out, if you and I were to look at a situation or scenario, we would interpret it differently (in terms of theological import). You seeing an atheist viewpoint as 'perverse' relies entirely on a view that there is an objective truth, something most Christians have I would suppose. But it is framing my views in Christian terms (ie. Seeing it as a rejection of a specific form of God) rather than allowing any true agency.

When looking at a binary situation (theism vs atheism) I daresay that doesn't seem problematic at all. I do wonder how you interpret the majority of humanity and their different...but diverse...views on your God. Is the majority of humanity perverse? If so, how does this align with a definition including 'denial of the obvious'? And if these differing views are corruptions, what was the corrupting force that led to the preponderance of Polytheistic beliefs in India (as one example)?

I disagree with your interpretation of the world. But I realise mine is a subjective opinion, even if I think it an honest one supported by everything I've seen in my time on earth.

Well, all have free will, and all have drawn different conclusions about the origins of life, morality, racial relations, marriage, etc...

Agreed.

Do you not hold someone accountable who accepts promiscuity as normal and healthy behaviour, or recreational drugs as innocuous, or that the sex trade is a viable vocation, or that their Maker does not exist?

Accountable? No, not to any great extent, unless you're talking about myself.
Actions have natural consequence, and I make choices with that in mind, and with a view to the long term.

But I would suggest that one of your examples is not like the others.
Drug use, promiscuity and participation in the sex trade are actions I can take or not take.

Belief in a Maker...and even moreso, belief in a specific definition of Maker...is not something I can control. Unless you're suggesting I should just fake belief, of course, so as to avoid subversion.

 

[DNB]

As you yourself pointed out, if you and I were to look at a situation or scenario, we would interpret it differently (in terms of theological import). You seeing an atheist viewpoint as 'perverse' relies entirely on a view that there is an objective truth, something most Christians have I would suppose. But it is framing my views in Christian terms (ie. Seeing it as a rejection of a specific form of God) rather than allowing any true agency. When looking at a binary situation (theism vs atheism) I daresay that doesn't seem problematic at all. I do wonder how you interpret the majority of humanity and their different...but diverse...views on your God. Is the majority of humanity perverse? If so, how does this align with a definition including 'denial of the obvious'?

But two religions cannot be simultaneously true, unless one modifies its precepts. And, therefore, yes, of course, there is an absolute truth - do the principles of the universe change, are there not constants that dictate the weather, the seasons, all creature's gestation period, where food comes from, a herbivore or omnivore's diet, man's disposition towards one another?
Does the sentiment of greed ever change as we knew it several millennia ago, compared to what it is today? The same with love and hate, charity and abuse. Is racism a new concept, did torture or war ever cease to exist?

There are objective truths, and I don't mean that altruism or selfishness will always exist, but that the source behind them is precise and predictable. I say this due to the fact that wickedness is senseless, hypocritical and self-destructive - it defies our intellect and sense of pragmatism. Why then is it so prevalent, and again, anticipated. There is a catalyst behind these acts that does not follow the laws of nature, life or humanitarianism by necessity i.e. good and evil.

Something is very real, very consistent, very predictable. I know for sure, that come tomorrow, someone will fall in love with another, someone will abuse another, someone will have a nightmare, get drunk, obtain a degree, regret their actions, win a trophy. Life has rules, restrictions, limitations, savagery, and compassion. Is there anyone wise enough to establish absolutes based on all the information that we have before us?

I conclude that a divine Being exists, and that man is in need of a saviour. And that saviour is Jesus Christ.

And if these differing views are corruptions, what was the corrupting force that led to the preponderance of Polytheistic beliefs in India (as one example)?

What we believe, reflects on how we regard God. Our beliefs, therefore, can be either indicting or exonerating in the eyes of God. His discretion in revealing Himself in an axiomatic fashion, is due to the fact that He desires man to strive to know Him, as this is the only way to expose the true sentiments of man's heart.

If a man has concluded that Hinduism is the true religion, or Buddhism or Sikhism or Islam, God will decide if the intent within their heart was misguided or not. I will put forth that the majority of all fallacious claims are derived from a deviant and vain, desire and outlook in one's mind.

Accountable? No, not to any great extent, unless you're talking about myself.
Actions have natural consequence, and I make choices with that in mind, and with a view to the long term.

One should concern themselves with their conscience. Yes, there is a practical aspect of abiding by certain rules, but one can also receive consequence for doing a good act, or do the wrong thing but for the right reason. Sacrificing oneself for another, is considered a virtue whether one be religious, or not

But I would suggest that one of your examples is not like the others.
Drug use, promiscuity and participation in the sex trade are actions I can take or not take.

You are indifferent towards them?

Belief in a Maker...and even moreso, belief in a specific definition of Maker...is not something I can control. Unless you're suggesting I should just fake belief, of course, so as to avoid subversion.

No one either desires one to feign their beliefs, or finds it necessary. There is enough constants in life to make a sound and accurate determination of what type of realms exist in the universe - physical and spiritual. There is a religious edifice on every single street corner in the world, since history began. Man is clearly a spiritual creature, always attempting to attain to, or communicate with, the transcendent.

There is no reason for one to sit on the fence, or claim 'subjectivity' in discerning fundamental facts about our universe, and life as we know it.

 

[Windwalker]

But two religions cannot be simultaneously true, unless one modifies its precepts.

Why can't they be? If two religions say love your neighbor as yourself, is one wrong?