Why Should God Right Our Wrongs?

[The Seeker]

Or that you are deluding yourself. Just because you cannot realize something does not make it false.

Just because a book states something doesn't make it true.

 

[The Seeker]

Ummm . . . yes, it does. It may not make it false for you. But it can certainly make it false for him.

Exactly!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't think that Romans means what you say it means.Regards,

Scott

Romans means exactly wht it says:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ummm . . . yes, it does. It may not make it false for you. But it can certainly make it false for him.

Living in a world where you decide what things mean excludes you from an exchange of ideas where things and words have a concrete meaning. Think what you wish. It does not make it true.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just because a book states something doesn't make it true.

And because you may fail to realize the truth in a book does not make it false. You are arguing abstracts.

 

[Popeyesays]

Nope. Romans 1:20, King James Bible.

17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

That which may be known of God is limited information, Sandy. We have to depend upon the Revelation of God to give us the information which can only be known by the sweat of our own brows, so to speak.

Everything that exists in Creation is a token of God, but His Essence is not knowable to Creation.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sandy whitelinger]

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."

That which may be known of God is limited information, Sandy. We have to depend upon the Revelation of God to give us the information which can only be known by the sweat of our own brows, so to speak.

Regards,
Scott

Yet getting back to the point of the knowlege of those who have not been evangelize the text clearly state that everything created know it's creator and the power of His Godhead. Therefore they are without excuse and cannot claim they did not have adequate knowlege. Salvation is determinate upon either the acceptance or rejection of God. Knowing He exists is adequate information.

 

[The Seeker]

And because you may fail to realize the truth in abook does not make it false. You are arguing abstracts.

Exactly how is it that you know that Romans 1 is true?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Exactly how is it that you know that Romans 1 is true?

And you failure to realize it to be true does not make it false. I'm going down that bunny trail. The OP is about the character of the God of the Bible.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yet getting back to the point of the e\knowlege of those who have not been evangelize the text clearly state that everything created know it's creator and the power of His Godhead. Therefore they are without excuse and cannot claim they did not have adequate knowlege. Salvation is determinate upon either the acceptance or rejection of God. Knowing He exists is adequate information.

Perhaps, but it is not adequate to change a heart that does not wish to change--or does not feel the need to change.

What irks me about Seeker is not that he does not believe, but that he uses the same rants and raves that a believer would use--in short he evangelizes and proselytizes.

Evangelistic atheists are usually hilarious as they propound loudly that which they despise loudly.

In the Marines it's called a "Circle Jerk". As an intellectual exercise it is sophistry.


Regards,
Scott

 

[The Seeker]

Perhaps, but it is not adequate to change a heart that does not wish to change--or does not feel the need to change.

What irks me about Seeker is not that he does not believe, but that he uses the same rants and raves that a believer would use--in short he evangelizes and proselytizes.

Evangelistic atheists are usually hilarious as they propound loudly that which they despise loudly.

In the Marines it's called a "Circle Jerk". As an intellectual exercise it is sophistry.

Regards,
Scott

I can hardly see how you can consider my posts as rants and raves. I'm merely giving my response to the OP. I believe that if there is a God, then he is partly to blame for the suffering in the world because he has failed to make himself known to all of mankind. I don't see how one can be expected to ask God to change their heart when they don't know the first thing about him.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with me questioning your God but my reason won't allow me to believe in something just because a book says so.

 

[Popeyesays]

Seeker,

It's you right to believe as you please. Your style of arguing is exactly similar to the evangelical Christians who frequent the boards too.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Perhaps, but it is not adequate to change a heart that does not wish to change--or does not feel the need to change.

What irks me about Seeker is not that he does not believe, but that he uses the same rants and raves that a believer would use--in short he evangelizes and proselytizes.

Evangelistic atheists are usually hilarious as they propound loudly that which they despise loudly.

In the Marines it's called a "Circle Jerk". As an intellectual exercise it is sophistry.


Regards,
Scott

No amount of knowledge will convert an unrepentant heart. I have a more socially acceptable term for it though, I call it obstinate ignorance.

 

[yossarian22]

No amount of knowledge will convert an unrepentant heart. I have a more socially acceptable term for it though, I call it obstinate ignorance.

I thought I smelled hypocrisy.

 

[Jeremiah]

If God gives us free will, and in our free will we sin against others, and our sin against others causes suffering, how can we expect God to end suffering when we don't first allow Him to change the hearts of those who cause it?

The above is a response to Buttercup's post on another thread.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke (or gods?)

 

[Jeremiah]

The other poster is not a four-year old, nor did I call him such. I said the argument is a four-year old's argument. The argument is childish. The argument is sophistry.

Arguments are not people.

Regards,
Scott

That's a very childish argument.

 

[Jeremiah]

No amount of knowledge will convert an unrepentant heart. I have a more socially acceptable term for it though, I call it obstinate ignorance.

Name calling is name calling.

 

[Jeremiah]

Suffering and evil in a world with an all powerful - loving God is paradoxical.

 

[Popeyesays]

To say someone is ignorant is name-calling.

To say someone displays ignorance in a particular reference is not name-calling.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jeremiah]

To say someone is ignorant is name-calling.

To say someone displays ignorance in a particular reference is not name-calling.

Regards,
Scott

It is poor manners none the less.