God rejection?

[DPMartin]

No, what I'm saying is there is no Jesus Christ or God to reject.

therefore you reject the God of Jesus Christ.

 

[DPMartin]

It's not a bad thing. When you reject someone, they "no longer know you" type of thing. Who soever believes have everlasting life. If you don't believe, by definition of that statement the condition is you won't benefit without believing; no eternal life.

Take Adam and Eve. When they sinned, god rejected them.

.

A&E rejected the Word of God and believed and trusted (placed their faith in) the words and views spoken by the serpent.


so the result is according to their own judgement, not God's Judgement. The mercy of God to let them remain in the life of the flesh dust to dust is what they were left with after they died from the Life they had before the tree.


Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



so who rejected who, first?

 

[Windwalker]

No, you didn’t answer the question, the question is about the God of Jesus Christ isn’t it? And not my views about anything.

Of course I do not believe Jesus rejects me, though I'm quite sure you would imagine he does, since neither I nor most people hold your beliefs as the gold-standard of truth about God. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is very little of what you think about God I could relate to. People don't reject God, when they reject your thinking about God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A&E rejected the Word of God and believed and trusted (placed their faith in) the words and views spoken by the serpent.

Because he was the only one telling the "God's honest truth".

so the result is according to their own judgement, not God's Judgement.

God was being dishonest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A&E rejected the Word of God and believed and trusted (placed their faith in) the words and views spoken by the serpent.

Interesting detail in that story that many people miss: God never tells Eve not to eat the fruit.

The story only describes God telling Adam. Presumably, Adam told Eve, but then Eve would have still only been rejecting the word of Adam, not the word of God. For Eve, the command was hearsay and only as trustworthy as Adam was.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A&E rejected the Word of God and believed and trusted (placed their faith in) the words and views spoken by the serpent.


so the result is according to their own judgement, not God's Judgement. The mercy of God to let them remain in the life of the flesh dust to dust is what they were left with after they died from the Life they had before the tree.


Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



so who rejected who, first?

A&E rejected the Word of God and believed and trusted (placed their faith in) the words and views spoken by the serpent.


so the result is according to their own judgement, not God's Judgement. The mercy of God to let them remain in the life of the flesh dust to dust is what they were left with after they died from the Life they had before the tree.


Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



so who rejected who, first?

The question is does god reject not who rejects first: Yes he does. We dont reject someone that does not exist. You have to exist in order to have something to reject.


Adam and Eve where ignorant. When a child misbehaves, the punishment isnt throwing him out house. Ideally, the punishmetn (or lesson-which is better than punishment) fits the intent of the behavior the parent wishes to address.

God was not ignorant to adam and eves existence. He knew they existed. His rejection (throwing them out the garden) was deliberate and premeditated. Therefore, who came first is not more the point than the logic and intent behind the rejection and more important the role and mindset of each person involved.

Telling a child dont touch X or you will die does nothing. It doesnt mean anything to that child. So he disobeys and the parent punishes him for his ignorance.

A human child and human parent. The logic should be the same between god and creation. It is not.

I see more morality in a human parent and child relationship because the parent doesnt throw their child (and hopefully not their teen nor adult) out the house for ignorance.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

therefore you reject the God of Jesus Christ.

That does not make sense.

There is no jesus nor god to reject

so you cannot reject a jesus nor god that does not exist.

That sounds like we are rejecting your claim about gods choices and ethics. We can reject your claim and belief but not the actual god to which you speak of. Rejecting your claim about god is different than rejecting an actual being that does not exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course, I disagree...

But do you see the logic behind the statement regardless your disagreement?

(Its not the opinion you you guys have; belief in god is harmless; its the logic behind your statements. How do you pick apart what you believe to make sense of it to other people who wish to learn)

 

[Kenny]

But do you see the logic behind the statement regardless your disagreement?

(Its not the opinion you you guys have; belief in god is harmless; its the logic behind your statements. How do you pick apart what you believe to make sense of it to other people who wish to learn)

To be honest, I have yet to find someone who wanted to learn not learn.

You did say that Jesus and you are like oil and vinegar, i.e.. you don't mix. I certainly find the logic that if you two are oil and vinegar, then there is no meeting place.

But to say there was no Jesus? Even unbelievers agree there was a Jesus, but hold to the position that he was just a man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

therefore you reject the God of Jesus Christ.

No God or Jesus has ever put themselves in a position to be accepted or rejected by me. The closest I've ever come to rejecting God or Jesus is to reject the human beings who claim to speak for God and Jesus.

... and I think it's rather telling that you conflate rejecting you with rejecting God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To be honest, I have yet to find someone who wanted to learn not learn.

You did say that Jesus and you are like oil and vinegar, i.e.. you don't mix. I certainly find the logic that if you two are oil and vinegar, then there is no meeting place.

But to say there was no Jesus? Even unbelievers agree there was a Jesus, but hold to the position that he was just a man.

I dont remember saying jesus and I were like oil and vinegar. I only know jesus through the sacraments of christ. I dont deny his existence; I just dont see him as god (the creator) himself. Ive been practicing in The Church a good four years (two years prior) and only knew of the definition of god as jesus himself. Though, I understood the Eucharist very different than what I hear many Catholics use. Its the vocabulary. A convert has a different perspective than those raised or been in the Church so long they disassociate themselves from who they were before christ.

I think you have the wrong person. I never said anything bad about christ. I am just questioning christians the logic behind you guys beliefs. I do ask a lot; and, this is probably why you all dont answer. Im not the usual typical atheist you meet across the street somewhere. The more I learn, the less I know christian (and Hindu and Pagan and Islam) are not at all near my values.

As for the second part,

Of course there is a jesus (and a Peter and a John) and everyone else we learned about in history class. Jesus isnt special in that regards.

So, my question is....

There is no jesus (as god) and no god (the creator) to reject. I cant reject Abraham Lincoln existed based on the facts that he did. Doesnt make much sense to say jesus (the person) doesnt nor does it make sense The Church just popped up into thin air without historical ties.

Jesus in his divinity no, there is no such thing as a person being perfect and divinity making him all-knowing etc. The creator/god that is far over my head in logic. The belief is not a bad one (the belief isnt a bad one). I have never thought there was a creator in my whole life.

Yes. Hard to believe. I wasnt indoctrinated and only five years ago came into a christian area. So, I never knew christ nor the creator outside the Church (which means the physical not invisible sacraments)

All scriptural so thats how I learned about scripture; read the bible, and all of that.

So thats not my point. Im not your everyday person. I do ask questions to learn....

How (logic) do you reject something (something not someone) that does not exist??

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@KenS

Also, not all atheist on RF are the same and have the same motives. You cannot compare what you know about atheist you speak with online and in person with every other atheist. Judging us already on our replies based on your criteria will never lead to a better understanding among both parties. Also, RF and internet is no excuse to not have deeper conversations than fussing over who and what exists and why.

 

[Kenny]

I dont remember saying jesus and I were like oil and vinegar. ?

My humble apologies... indeed, it was someone else.

 

[Kenny]

There is no jesus (as god) and no god (the creator) to reject. I cant reject Abraham Lincoln existed based on the facts that he did. Doesnt make much sense to say jesus (the person) doesnt nor does it make sense The Church just popped up into thin air without historical ties.

You are correct. If your position is that Jesus was just another man, then logically you would think that there is nothing to reject.

Jesus in his divinity no, there is no such thing as a person being perfect and divinity making him all-knowing etc. The creator/god that is far over my head in logic. The belief is not a bad one (the belief isnt a bad one). I have never thought there was a creator in my whole life.

Yes. Hard to believe. I wasnt indoctrinated and only five years ago came into a christian area. So, I never knew christ nor the creator outside the Church (which means the physical not invisible sacraments)

All scriptural so thats how I learned about scripture; read the bible, and all of that.

So thats not my point. Im not your everyday person. I do ask questions to learn....

How (logic) do you reject something (something not someone) that does not exist??

So, before we go to the last question... then who was Jesus? We do know he existed. We do know that the letters (secular and religious) have positions about him... so who do you think he was and how did you come to that conclusion?

PS

I wasn't indoctrinated either. Started at 28 with many questions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are correct. If your position is that Jesus was just another man, then logically you would think that there is nothing to reject.


So, before we go to the last question... then who was Jesus? We do know he existed. We do know that the letters (secular and religious) have positions about him... so who do you think he was and how did you come to that conclusion?

PS

I wasn't indoctrinated either. Started at 28 with many questions.

Thank you. Ima get back to the reply. Hoping you stick this through.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My humble apologies... indeed, it was someone else.

It was @Mindmaster #20 (just for info) I knew I read it too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are correct. If your position is that Jesus was just another man, then logically you would think that there is nothing to reject.

Kinda see my confusion?

But the logic behind it is still stands. Human or not, god exists. As someone that exists, one would need to know that person exists regardless of what the nature is in order to reject it. So whether god is a person, animal, or spirit the logic still applies to X has to exist for Y to reject it.

So, before we go to the last question... then who was Jesus? We do know he existed. We do know that the letters (secular and religious) have positions about him... so who do you think he was and how did you come to that conclusion?

Tell you honestly, I dont know. I wasnt really interested in knowing christian history after all I learned about christianity, a bit about Judaism, Muslims, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Corinthians, and so forth. I honestly dont see how it can be positive. Even those who adopt Roman Pagan beliefs (Pagans not christians) because of the history, Im not one to be associated with it. Its specific to my values and what makes me comfortable.

I dont understand about the letters equal god exists. Thats like when I write my poetry, beautiful poetry and I value it like you do the bible, but I do know what I write reflects whats going on my head, my culture, values, environment, and so forth--just as scripture and any other historical and literature book.

Historians dont put together events to prove the supernatural exists. Thats not the purpose of studying history. So, the supernatural things like god speaks through scripture isnt at all historical. Its personal between the believer and the book he or she takes to heart.

The problem is not the belief but making the claim history proves spiritual and supernatural as facts like that of reading Edgar Allen Poe and concluding his Raven exists because he wrote about it and there are hundreds of essays written about that one poem alone.

I was thinking of taking christian history as a college credit but opted to take art history and geology so I can graduate. If you go to coursera.org to find related classes. They used to be free but now they are far in between. There was a better course but this one is the only one left of the christian one.

 

[Trailblazer]

And since all the evidence I’ve ever seen is entirely consistent with the non-existence of every god ever proposed to me, I think I have good reason to not accept any of them.

True, that is a good reason not to accept any God...
You should only go with evidence that can be accepted by your logical mind....
If it does not make logical sense to you, you should not accept it.
I would never believe in God just to believe in God... that would be dumb.
I only believe in God because I have evidence that makes sense to me.

 

[Kenny]

Kinda see my confusion?

But the logic behind it is still stands. Human or not, god exists. As someone that exists, one would need to know that person exists regardless of what the nature is in order to reject it. So whether god is a person, animal, or spirit the logic still applies to X has to exist for Y to reject it.

That would be absolutely correct... one has to start somewhere.

Tell you honestly, I dont know. I wasnt really interested in knowing christian history after all I learned about christianity, a bit about Judaism, Muslims, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Corinthians, and so forth. I honestly dont see how it can be positive. Even those who adopt Roman Pagan beliefs (Pagans not christians) because of the history, Im not one to be associated with it. Its specific to my values and what makes me comfortable.

I dont understand about the letters equal god exists. Thats like when I write my poetry, beautiful poetry and I value it like you do the bible, but I do know what I write reflects whats going on my head, my culture, values, environment, and so forth--just as scripture and any other historical and literature book.

Historians dont put together events to prove the supernatural exists. Thats not the purpose of studying history. So, the supernatural things like god speaks through scripture isnt at all historical. Its personal between the believer and the book he or she takes to heart.

The problem is not the belief but making the claim history proves spiritual and supernatural as facts like that of reading Edgar Allen Poe and concluding his Raven exists because he wrote about it and there are hundreds of essays written about that one poem alone.

I was thinking of taking christian history as a college credit but opted to take art history and geology so I can graduate. If you go to coursera.org to find related classes. They used to be free but now they are far in between. There was a better course but this one is the only one left of the christian one.

LOL... Well, that is it in a nutshell... but it seems more like a mountain! (I'm not criticizing in any form or fashion).

It does show you are trying to process.

Let me take one paragraph, that being, "The problem is not the belief but making the claim history proves spiritual and supernatural as facts like that of reading Edgar Allen Poe and concluding his Raven exists because he wrote about it and there are hundreds of essays written about that one poem alone."

I'm not sure that holds true although there is some truth to what you are saying. (not arguing, just following the thought) If history proves that a person predicting the future has a 100% record and his predictions cannot be logically deduced, shouldn't that at the least suggest that there is something supernatural?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure that holds true although there is some truth to what you are saying. (not arguing, just following the thought) If history proves that a person predicting the future has a 100% record and his predictions cannot be logically deduced, shouldn't that at the least suggest that there is something supernatural?

How does history prove the bible but then other events it has a hard time figuring out?

If it actually is supernatural and something external and universal rather than personal and subjective then there would be many citations and support that we would probably see day in and day out on t.v. the truth of predictions (supernatural ones) and how the laws of nature have been broken etc.

I can see CBS and NBC (and other television channels combined) flipping over the evidence that these predictions are fact and not by the eye of the beholder. I mean, thats just the general, I guess, common sense view. If it were fact, believe me, it wont be just historical events.

at the library. computer bout to clunk out. continued....