Can a non-Christian do good? [Archive]

SkyGem

Feb 9, 2008, 07:27 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

Of course they can -- they always have the power to become Born Again Christians!

If you are looking for an answer to get around becoming a Christian, you will not find it in Scripture as it relates to your being Saved, and what good is anything else -- as we are here on Earth for only a very short period. However, the overriding question should be whether the non-Christian is doing the will of God by remaining a non-Christian therefore, un-Saved. Remember, God wishes to Save every person! The answer to that is also found in the following Scripture: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the ONLY begotten Son of God." -- JOHN 3:18 (KJV)

Also, this next Scripture is germane to this subject matter. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be Born Again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- JOHN 3:3 (KJV)

Therefore, it is plain to see and understand that a non-Christian cannot be saved and although he/she can certainly do good deeds whenever he or she wants, while that is always helpful to others (if the intent is to do good and not for self-aggrandizement) spiritually speaking, what good is it in the sight of God if you are not a Christian, if you don't actually believe in the One and Only God because that's what truly matters! That is akin to bringing a teacher an apple every day for the full semester of studies in the hope that the teacher will pass you to a higher grade. That will never happen with a strictly moral teacher. They may surely be appreciative of the kind act in giving them things, but that does not automatically translate into special favors later on.

No matter what kind of good an un-believer does, it certainly will not help them to elevate into Heaven at their appointed time according to Scripture. It takes more! But what is the problem with not believing in the ONLY Son of God, Jesus, and why be so stubborn? Does it boil down to being your "personal preference"? But if it means that you will be Saved if you give your life to Him (which it of course does, when one becomes Born Again) then why refrain from doing so? Certainly, one has free will, but that free will also means that they can Accept Jesus and thereby become Saved. Perhaps it does not mean much to the un-believer at the present time while they are on Earth in a corporeal body, but later on when they have left this Earth, it will mean Plenty, as the decisions one makes here on Earth, be they good or bad, will carry over into the Afterlife, and that is for eternity!

For further reading, there is an excellent website (short-reading) at:
Are you a Non-Christian? (http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/NonChristians.htm)

De Maria

Feb 9, 2008, 08:15 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

A believer? Yes.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

There are many non-Christians who have faith in God.

Can someone who does not believe in God do good in His sight? Only if he is seeking God while doing so.

Does this seem unfair? I would say, "no." It seems eminently fair. If someone doesn't believe in God, but lives only for himself, what does it matter to him if he pleases God or not?

Of course it doesn't. There are many here who don't care one iota about God. So, why do they want to do good in the sight of the being in which they don't believe and why do they want to go to heaven and eternity with the being which they claim does not exist?

So, in order to do good in the sight of God, one must first believe in God.

lobrobster

Feb 9, 2008, 11:09 PM

I believe you can be a good person with morals. But to be good in the sight of God impossible for anyone. The Bible says are righteousness is as filthy rags in the sight of God. The only thing that makes us good is Salvation with His Mercy and Grace.

Serious question:

Doesn't it bother you being told you were born a worthless piece of wretched filth unless you do as 'they' say?

I drop in on this forum now and then to try and comprehend how the religious mind works. No offense, but I still can't make sense of it. But I'm trying.

lobrobster

Feb 9, 2008, 11:21 PM

Can someone who does not believe in God do good in His sight? Only if he is seeking God while doing so.

I'll bet if a fireman saved a loved one from a burning building you'd consider it a miracle. But what if you learned that fireman was an atheist? All of a sudden he didn't do good by God, huh?

Allheart

Feb 10, 2008, 03:20 AM

I've always wondered why "Christians" (those who have Christ in their heart) throw bible versus at those who do not believe, damn them to hell, and expect them to believe in our Loving God.

I believe in our Heavenly Father with all my heart and of course want others to know His love as well. I think our Father would want us to be loving followers and it would be through our loving actions that non-believers would open their hearts to Jesus.

When "Christians" yell, scream and damn others to hell... it doesn't resemble God's love and I wonder how much of Christ is actually in their hearts. I am saying I wonder, I am not saying they do not have Christ in their heart, but in truth, those that scream and rant, are those that I find it most difficult to see His Love in them.

God's word can be heard far greater by loving actions. It hurts my heart when those who claim to love Our Father, say hurtful things to those who are yet to believe.

The Prayer of St. Francis is one of my very favorites and I love to share it with you.
afsF8zIBuh4

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy;
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

excon

Feb 10, 2008, 05:46 AM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?Hello K:

Who cares what your god thinks? I ain't interested. He already thinks I'm a sinner. He thinks I'm going to hell if I don't bow down to him. And, all I did was get born.

Nope. I'm trying to do good in the sight of ME.

excon

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 05:48 AM

I've always wondered why "Christians" (those who have Christ in their heart) throw bible versus at those who do not beleive, damn them to hell, and expect them to beleive in our Loving God.

I beleive in our Heavenly Father with all my heart and of course want others to know His love as well. I think our Father would want us to be loving followers and it would be through our loving actions that non-believers would open their hearts to Jesus.

When "Christians" yell, scream and damn others to hell....it doesn't resemble God's love and I wonder how much of Christ is actually in their hearts. I am saying I wonder, I am not saying they do not have Christ in their heart, but in truth, those that scream and rant, are those that I find it most difficult to see His Love in them.

God's word can be heard far greater by loving actions. It hurts my heart when those who claim to love Our Father, say hurtful things to those who are yet to believe.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but maybe it's because they believe 'our Father' is going to torture them for eternity anyway. What's a little ranting and raving compared to what you so gladly accept to be in store for non-believers?

Allheart

Feb 10, 2008, 05:55 AM

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but maybe it's because they believe 'our Father' is going to torture them for eternity anyway. What's a little ranting and raving compared to what you so gladly accept to be in store for non-believers?

I'm sorry Lob - I don't understand what your saying. Forgive me. And you may have misunderstood what I said.

I was not directing it to anyone, and honestly I don't really see the ranting and raving in this thread, but did you ever come across those that have the bible in one hand, and scream that those who don't accept Jesus are going to hell, that gays are doomed. But it's not done in a loving way, it's done in an angry way. That is what I was referring to.

I am sorry that I wasn't understanding your thoughts. I don't gladly accept what is in store for non-believers, I honestly don't even let my mind go there. I pretty much am trying to clean my act up so I can more easily do right the it be such a struggle. And when I pray more and remember what is important, it is so much easier.

Does that make sense?

Allheart

Feb 10, 2008, 06:02 AM

Hello K:

Who cares what your god thinks? I ain't interested. He already thinks I'm a sinner. He thinks I'm going to hell if I don't bow down to him. And, all I did was get born.

Nope. I'm trying to do good in the sight of ME.

excon

Hi Ex -

I see it just a tad different. I see it as we all are veiwed as sinners... or to use a more generalized word... we all fall and make mistakes, So in truth, God sees and loves us all just the same.

I don't think God wants us to bow down to Him, but I do believe he wants us not to put money, material things, majic and any false things of worship before him. He also wants us to obey Him. Why? The same reasons our parents didn't want us to give into peer pressure (could be subsittuted for false gods) and the same reasons they wanted us to obey them... because they were desperately trying to teach us right from wrong and to go against that more then likely would bring harm to us or pain.

Our Father loves us and yes, wants us to obey his ways and know and spread his love but not because He is egotistical, but because He is loving and wants to keep us from harm.

I more then respect your beleifs Ex - as well as everyone else's and never want to shove my beleifs on anyone.

By me coming here and posting it helps to reaffirm my beleifs and make them stronger.

ordinaryguy

Feb 10, 2008, 06:18 AM

Therefore, it is plain to see and understand that a non-Christian cannot be saved
This isn't really the problem you seem to think it is. The Christian belief system is what tells you that you NEED saving, so people who don't have that, don't have the need. Since you're offering a solution to a problem they don't have, it shouldn't surprise you if they aren't interested in hearing you go on about it.

Anyway, the original question wasn't whether they could be saved, it was whether they could do good.

SkyGem

Feb 10, 2008, 09:42 AM

This isn't really the problem you seem to think it is. The Christian belief system is what tells you that you NEED saving, so people who don't have that, don't have the need. Since you're offering a solution to a problem they don't have, it shouldn't surprise you if they aren't interested in hearing you go on about it.

Anyway, the original question wasn't whether they could be saved, it was whether they could do good.

It is the problem GOD Says It Is and who could know Better! People who don't have a Christian belief system should reconsider why they don't and then move to align themselves with the ONLY system that can offer them Salvation. To hesitate on that is akin to seeing a car rushing towards you and not moving to the other side to try to save yourself and simply allow the car to hit you, knowing the consequences.

And who says not all are interested in hearing what I have to say, but better yet said, what SCRIPTURE has to say about this. Many former un-believers have been Saved and have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior after hearing The Word of God. So, it IS possible to those who truly care about their soul and spirit before they pass on. Of course, to those who do not, no amount of discourse is going to change their mind but then again, they do not wish to see the Light of God, feel His Love and be at Peace with complete Tranquility in the first place when they finish their Earthly life. They obviously are telling us they prefer the darkness where God does not exist and the suffering that inevitably takes place where Jesus is not to grant them Salvation. That is highly disappointing and so many of us are trying to show them a way out of that way of thinking so they may be able to have Jesus Save their soul and spirit when the time comes.

About the original quotation, I answered that. People can indeed do good even if they are not Christians but again, that is not going to bring them Salvation which is something they need to seriously consider. The main issue of being Saved should not be confused or obfuscated by sliding into another area that literally helps no one in that kind of situation. Good should always be done by ALL. But if that is what the non-Believer is looking at trying to use that as a ticket to Heaven when their time comes, then the 'train conductor' going there is going to tell them that their ticket has expired and they need a New Pass. Let's hope people stop to think about this important matter and the dire consequences before it is too late for them. What if they had only a day left to live and they knew there was a difference in where they would end up for eternity? I would like to believe that many would go on Faith by accepting Jesus Christ into their life to try to Save their soul and spirit in the end as should be.

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 10:57 AM

I'm sorry Lob - I don't understand what your saying. Forgive me. And you may have misunderstood what I said.

I was not directing it to anyone, and honestly I don't really see the ranting and raving in this thread, but did you ever come across those that have the bible in one hand, and scream that those who don't accept Jesus are going to hell, that gays are doomed. But it's not done in a loving way, it's done in an angry way. That is what I was referring to.

I am sorry that I wasn't understanding your thoughts. I don't gladly accept what is in store for non-believers, I honestly don't even let my mind go there. I pretty much am trying to clean my act up so I can more easily do right the it be such a struggle. And when I pray more and remember what is important, it is so much easier.

Does that make sense?

You said you didn't understand why some Christians throw bible verses at non-believers. I'm just pointing out that people who REALLY believe others are headed for such a revolting eternal torture chamber, that throwing biblical verses around doesn't seem too unreasonable.

ordinaryguy

Feb 10, 2008, 11:27 AM

The main issue of being Saved should not be confused or obfuscated by sliding into another area
I get that being saved is the main issue for YOU. But there is no way you can make it be the main issue for somebody who doesn't share your belief system. Sorry for your angst.

talaniman

Feb 10, 2008, 11:38 AM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

I certainly hope so 'cause I try.

SkyGem

Feb 10, 2008, 11:39 AM

I get that being saved is the main issue for YOU. But there is no way you can make it be the main issue for somebody who doesn't share your belief system. Sorry for your angst.

And I am truly sorry also that you have freely chosen darkness and desolation without Salvation instead of Light with Love and Peace and Happiness in Heaven. Because you were created by God, may God help you to see the Light in this important situation before it's too late.

De Maria

Feb 10, 2008, 12:07 PM

I'll bet if a fireman saved a loved one from a burning building you'd consider it a miracle.

I would certainly appreciate it and I would thank the fireman and then I would thank God.

But what if you learned that fireman was an atheist?

I would still thank him. And I would still thank God for permitting him to save my loved one.

All of a sudden he didn't do good by God, huh?

No, he didn't do anything that could save him for eternity. Remember, HE doesn't believe in God. Therefore, HE DOESN'T CARE about living in eternity with God.

For instance, lets say that fireman were you. Did you save that person's life because you cared about God? No? Then why do you want God to save you for eternity?

Ex-Con understands atheism exactly right. He says, Who cares what your god thinks? I ain't interested. .... Nope. I'm trying to do good in the sight of ME.

Or what are you saying here Lob? Do you mean that you want God to take your deeds into account? Yet you don't take His deeds into account? How is that fair?

So, the question is very simple. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Feb 10, 2008, 12:28 PM

Absolutely. The story of the good Samaritan is a perfect example of how "non-believers"...

Samaritans are believers.

The Samaritans (Hebrew: שומרונים‎ Shomronim), known in the Talmud as Kuthim (Hebrew: כותים‎), are an ethnic group of the Levant. Ethnically, they are descended from a group of Israelite inhabitants that have connections to ancient Samaria from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the beginning of the Common Era. The Samaritans, however, derive their name not from this geographical designation, but rather from the term שַמֶרִים (Shamerim), “keepers [of the law]”.[citation needed] Religiously, they are the adherents to Samaritanism, a religion based on the Torah. Samaritans claim that their worship (as opposed to mainstream Judaism) is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, predating the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Samaritan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan)

... a perfect example of how "non-believers" can also do good.

I don't think anyone denied that "non-believers" could do good. Only that non-believers could do good in the sight of God.

There's a difference. If a believer does good in the sight of God, then his deed will be accounted towards his salvation:

Matthew 10 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man.

Matthew 16 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

But, without faith, it is impossible to please God:

Hebrews 11 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

So, if a non-believer does good in the sight of men and in his own sight, he has received his reward. He has received the applause of men and the feeling of pride that comes along with doing something which pleases men and self. But this deed is not counted towards his eternal salvation since he does not believe in eternal salvation which only comes from the God whose existence he denies.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Allheart

Feb 10, 2008, 12:56 PM

You said you didn't understand why some Christians throw bible verses at non-believers. I'm just pointing out that people who REALLY believe others are headed for such a revolting eternal torture chamber, that throwing biblical verses around doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Sorry - I should have said... "harshly try and force".

Additionally, while they are trying to "jam" God's love down the throats of the "poor souls destined for hell" should they not be tending to their own internal house as well?

I could almost lay money down that there were times that God was pleased 5x as much
with a non-believer's brotherly love and giving soul then myself, a beleiver, who sins and whose sins hurts our Heavenly Father.

So, you see, I don't understand nor do I see God's love in harsh words spoken trying to "force" someone to see the error of their ways.

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 01:07 PM

For instance, lets say that fireman were you. Did you save that person's life because you cared about God?

And how much more noble is a good deed done for no other reason than the goodness of the deed and to help someone? Not because of wanting a reward or out of fear from punishment.

So, the question is very simple. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

It's not about me caring if God is pleased, it's about what Christians think. Sometimes I think I have more respect for the god you worship than you do. You are basically saying that even if one performs a tremendous deed or heroic act for the sake of a Christian (one of God's children), that this person has not done good in the sight of god. What kind of merciless, contemptuous being do you think god is?

ordinaryguy

Feb 10, 2008, 01:18 PM

And I am truly sorry also that you have freely chosen darkness and desolation without Salvation instead of Light with Love and Peace and Happiness in Heaven.
I have chosen no such thing, but I do thank you for displaying your self-righteous presumption so clearly and unambiguously. You perform a valuable service for those who may be hesitant or undecided.

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 01:23 PM

I could almost lay money down that there were times that God was pleased 5x as much with a non-believer's brotherly love and giving soul then myself, a beleiver, who sins and whose sins hurts our Heavenly Father.

Wow, a Christian I can respect! You are in a very rare minority. Most Christians I know have the same typical view of someone like De Maria who states in no uncertain terms: "It's impossible to please God without faith".

So, you see, I don't understand nor do I see God's love in harsh words spoken trying to "force" someone to see the error of their ways.

But to be honest, I don't understand your thinking here. Again, if I really believed that over half the people on the planet were destined to spend eternity in a fiery torture chamber, I'd be one of those guys you see on the street corner preaching and wearing a sign. How can it not be the right thing to do to get the word out and do everything humanly possible to save people from such a horrendous fate?

Allheart

Feb 10, 2008, 01:28 PM

But to be honest, I don't understand your thinking here. Again, if I really believed that over half the people on the planet were destined to spend eternity in a fiery torture chamber, I'd be one of those guys you see on the street corner preaching and wearing a sign. How can it be right not to do everything and anything possible to get the word out and save people from such a fate?

A loving hug and mutually respectful conversation go a long way.

I do understand what you are saying... in there minds they are "desperate" to save everyone. I just don't feel that is there true motivation and may God forigive me for saying that. If it were, they would stop there shouting, and take time to listen. Just my opinion.

De Maria

Feb 10, 2008, 04:54 PM

And how much more noble is a good deed done for no other reason than the goodness of the deed and to help someone?

Lol!! I must have struck a nerve. A lot of double talk but no answer to the question.

Why do you want a nonexistent being to count the goodness of your deeds?

Not because of wanting a reward or out of fear from punishment.

I didn't say anything about wanting a reward or fear of punishment. I said faith. What does faith mean to you?

It's not about me caring if God is pleased, it's about what Christians think.

No. It doesn't matter what we think.

In fact, you have derailed the question. The question is whether a nonChristian can do good in the eyes of God.

I have answered that a nonChristian can do good in the eyes of God. But a nonbeliever can't. Or at least not any good that will count towards his salvation.

Sometimes I think I have more respect for the god you worship than you do.

That's because you don't understand the God I worship. You want to be saved by God but you don't want to pay the price of faith in God. That simply means you want to make up your own religion.

But, let me ask point blank, are you saying you believe in God?

You are basically saying that even if one performs a tremendous deed or heroic act for the sake of a Christian (one of God's children), that this person has not done good in the sight of god.

If he does it for his own sake, that is correct.

What kind of merciless, contemptuous being do you think god is?

I think God is a wonderful loving being who takes care of those who love Him. I think God wants all to be saved but He does not coerce them. And I think God respects YOUR decision. If you don't want anything to do with God in this life, that is proof that you want nothing to do with Him in the next.

So, answer the question. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

Sincerely,

De Maria

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 06:38 PM

What does faith mean to you?

Faith to me, means a belief in a proposition despite the complete lack of sufficient evidence to support that belief.

No. It doesn't matter what we think.

I think it does matter. The rational people of this world realize that it's these type of assumptions that one has an inside line to what will please an invisible god that is the reason different religions want to kill each other.

have answered that a nonChristian can do good in the eyes of God. But a nonbeliever can't. Or at least not any good that will count towards his salvation.

So someone who believes in Allah, Zeus, or the great juju of the mountain can do good in the eyes of your god, but an atheist cannot? That makes no sense.

But, let me ask point blank, are you saying you believe in God?

I'll answer point blank. No. I do not believe in any type of god. But more importantly, if I did, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume my religion must know him better than any of the other hundreds of religions.

So, answer the question. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

Again, I don't care. What I care about is that people aren't so arrogant or pretentious to think they can speak for God. IF God does exist (and IF he cares about what goes on in our little remote corner of the universe), it's certainly not for you to say what could or couldn't please him.

De Maria

Feb 10, 2008, 08:22 PM

Faith to me, means a belief in a proposition despite the complete lack of sufficient evidence to support that belief.

And that is where we differ. You see, I believe God is my heavenly Father. I believe He loves me and has my best interest at heart. That is why I have faith in Him.

Lets compare that to something we can relate to. I have faith in my earthly father because I know that he loves me and he does things in my best interest.

Unfortunately, there are children in this world who have parents in whom they do not have faith because, whether they love their parents or not, they can't trust their parents to do things in their best interest. Therefore, they have no faith in their parents.

Since you don't believe God exists, I wouldn't expect you to have faith in Him.

I think it does matter. The rational people of this world realize that it's these type of assumptions that one has an inside line to what will please an invisible god that is the reason different religions want to kill each other.

You love to bring up things that aren't in the discussion. The fact is that the deadliest people in history are atheists. Atheistic regimes have killed more people in one century alone than all relgious people have throughout the history of mankind.

But lets not change the subject. If you want to discuss this, make another thread.

So someone who believes in Allah, Zeus, or the great juju of the mountain can do good in the eyes of your god, but an atheist cannot? That makes no sense.

To you. But it makes perfect sense to me. Someone who believes in a god, even if he does not believe in the True God, may be saved by the True God because that person may be seeking the True God.

People who believe in false gods are frequently, but not always, searching for the True God.

Scripture says:

Acts Of Apostles 17 22 But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. 23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:

I'll answer point blank. No. I do not believe in any type of god.

Ok. It seems strange, don't you think, that you would say you have more respect for God than I, since you don't even acknowledge His existence?

But more importantly, if I did, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume my religion must know him better than any of the other hundreds of religions.

What type of belief is that? That is more like uncertainty.

IF you believed, which you don't, you would assume that the religion in which you believed knew God better than the others.

Again, I don't care.

Apparently, you do. You have yet to answer the question and below, you sound uncertain as to the existence of God. Yet two sentences above you claimed not to believe in His existence?

So, do you or don't you believe that God exists?

What I care about is that people aren't so arrogant or pretentious to think they can speak for God.

Again, a statement that presupposes the existence of God.

If you don't believe God exists, why do you care if someone speaks for Him or not?

IF God does exist (and IF he cares about what goes on in our little remote corner of the universe), it's certainly not for you to say what could or couldn't please him.

What? Now its "if"? This is a display of uncertainty. Are you an atheist or not?

I think I need to ask the question again. This time answer the question directly please.
If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Donna Mae

Feb 10, 2008, 09:12 PM

talaniman

Feb 10, 2008, 09:15 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

It doesn't matter if your Christian or not, if you do good, I think God will appreciate it. :) If you don't believe in God, and you still do good, I think he will appreciate that too. At least the God I understand does.

Donna Mae

Feb 10, 2008, 09:50 PM

God doesn't want us to be lukewarm, we are either hot or cold. We either believe or we don't believe, there is no in between. If we believe, we do everything for God. If we don't believe, we don't care if God appreciates it or not. At least until the judgement day, and yes there will be a judgement day. Everything we have ever done in our lives will be revealed on that day. Good for God or good for ourselves, it will be there. God is a jealous God. He wants to be first in our lives and I want Him first in my life. I want to go through the narrow gate for wide is the gate that leads to destruction. (Matthew 7:13-14)

lobrobster

Feb 10, 2008, 11:14 PM

Lets compare that to something we can relate to. I have faith in my earthly father because I know that he loves me and he does things in my best interest.

With just one very small difference... You have SEEN physical evidence that your earthly father exists! Just a small caveat, don't you think? Now I'll agree that you might be using faith to believe that your earthly father loves you. But I'm assuming you have evidence that he does such as the 'things he has done in your best interest'. This is what's called evidence. When you believe something with no evidence to go on, then it is called faith.

he fact is that the deadliest people in history are atheists.

Ugh, this is such a tired old line used by theists. I'm certainly not going to start a thread on a Christian forum defending atheists. Here's the difference and it's the last I'll say on the matter in this thread. Those atheists didn't kill people because they were atheists! They killed people because of a warped ideology that had nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a god. Atheism is not a belief. It's not a movement. It is the exact opposite. It's a LACK of belief. So it had nothing to do with atheism, but with ideologies such as white supremacy, communism, etc. that are not unlike a religion themselves. To prove my point, name me one wicked deed that could only be performed by an atheist and not a religious person. Now think of a wicked deed that could only be performed in the name of religion and not by an atheist. It's all too easy to think of a latter example.

Someone who believes in a god, even if he does not believe in the True God, may be saved by the True God because that person may be seeking the True God.

Are you sure about this? I don't understand that bit of scripture you quoted as meaning it's OK to worship false gods. In fact, one of the ten commandments clearly states that thou shall have no other gods before me. Also, doesn't Christianity say you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior in order to receive salvation? Are you saying that Christians don't believe Muslims will go to hell? Certainly Protestants do. Again, this is what I mean by interpretation. You guys need to get it straight. If YOU guys don't even understand it, how are we supposed to?

So, do you or don't you believe that God exists?

Technically, you could say I'm agnostic. I think that's the only rational position to have. Those who say they know for sure there is no god are being just as irrational as those who say that they know for sure that there is. The fact is, I do not know for sure that there is no god. But I also do not know for sure there are no such things as invisible fairies. Since the evidence for both is equally non-existent I take the position that it doesn't make much sense to base my life around either existing. The difference between you and I. is that if I were presented evidence that God existed, I would immediately change my position. How could you ever change your position on God when you won't even change it in the face of the very valid scientific theory of evolution! If you had lived a few centuries ago, you'd be among those who fought the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

If you don't believe God exists, why do you care if someone speaks for Him or not?

Because when Bin Laden spoke for God on 9/11 thousands of Americans died. It can be dangerous. Why can't you understand that?

If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?

Again, I don't care. I care about people flying planes into our buildings. And people who think that they have a direct line to god and know what pleases Him. These are the people most likely to commit such an act. That's what I care about!

talaniman

Feb 11, 2008, 05:38 AM

I think I can leave the salvation of my soul, to the God I understand, and everybody has the God given choice to do whatever they want. May you get the blessings you deserve.

De Maria

Feb 11, 2008, 09:31 AM

With just one very small difference... You have SEEN physical evidence that your earthly father exists! Just a small caveat, don't you think?

I have also seen what God has done in my life and it is wonderful to behold.

Now I'll agree that you might be using faith to believe that your earthly father loves you. But I'm assuming you have evidence that he does such as the 'things he has done in your best interest'. This is what's called evidence. When you believe something with no evidence to go on, then it is called faith.

I have plenty of evidence of what God has done for me.

Ugh, this is such a tired old line used by theists. I'm certainly not going to start a thread on a Christian forum defending atheists. Here's the difference and it's the last I'll say on the matter in this thread. Those atheists didn't kill people because they were atheists! They killed people because of a warped ideology that had nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a god. Atheism is not a belief. It's not a movement. It is the exact opposite. It's a LACK of belief. So it had nothing to do with atheism, but with ideologies such as white supremacy, communism, etc. that are not unlike a religion themselves. To prove my point, name me one wicked deed that could only be performed by an atheist and not a religious person. Now think of a wicked deed that could only be performed in the name of religion and not by an atheist. It's all too easy to think of a latter example.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that atheists are the deadliest people in human history.

Are you sure about this?

Yes, I'm sure:

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 843 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/843.htm)

I don't understand that bit of scripture you quoted as meaning it's OK to worship false gods.

I don't either. Did I say it was OK to worship other gods?

In fact, one of the ten commandments clearly states that thou shall have no other gods before me.

Yes, it does.

Also, doesn't Christianity say you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior in order to receive salvation?

Some Christians believe that. But the Catholic Church teaches:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Are you saying that Christians don't believe Muslims will go to hell?

The Catholic Church teaches:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

Certainly Protestants do.

If you want to debate that with Protestants, go to it. I'm Catholic.

Again, this is what I mean by interpretation. You guys need to get it straight. If YOU guys don't even understand it, how are we supposed to?

This from the man who can't seem to decide if he's atheist or agnostic.

Technically, you could say I'm agnostic.

But you talk like an atheist. You continually insist that God doesn't exist, that you have no evidence of His existence and that we should share in your non-belief. Now suddenly, you aren't so sure.

If you are not certain that God exists, shouldn't you hedge your bets?

I think that's the only rational position to have.

One man's opinion. I believe all three are rational positions, belief, non belief and uncertainty. But I believe that belief in God is the most rational because it is based on the best evidence.

In fact, your brand of agnosticism is more irrational than non belief. You proclaim loudly that there is no God, you proclaim loudly that you don't care what He thinks or does, you proclaim loudly all types of accusations against Him and His people. But when all is said and done, you say, "I'm really not certain."

I've met other agnostics who quite rationally behave in conformity with their beliefs. When asked, "If you aren't certain that God exists, why do you go to Church?" They answer, "Precisely because I'm not certain whether God exists. If He does exist, I'm covered."

The Scriptures say,

Ecclesiasticus 19 21 Better is a man that hath less wisdom, and wanteth understanding, with the fear of God, than he that aboundeth in understanding, and transgresseth the law of the most High.

Those who say they know for sure there is no god are being just as irrational as those who say that they know for sure that there is.

Wrong. It is the person who says that he isn't sure if God exists but then acts as though God doesn't exist who is the most irrational of all.

Its very simple. Say you have a lottery ticket in your hand. And you just heard that the winning lottery ticket is held by a person in your town, your neighborhood and your household. Would you throw the lottery ticket away because you don't know if it's the winner?

Well, that's what you are doing. You admit that God might exist but you speak as though He doesn't. And you teach others that He doesn't thereby throwing away any possibility of living in eternity with the Being who can put you there.

There is only one position more irrational than yours, the person who claims to believe in God but acts as though God doesn't exist.

The fact is, I do not know for sure that there is no god. But I also do not know for sure there are no such things as invisible fairies. Since the evidence for both is equally non-existent I take the position that it doesn't make much sense to base my life around either existing. The difference between you and I. is that if I were presented evidence that God existed, I would immediately change my position.

Not really. I was born Catholic, became atheist and now I am Catholic again. Why do you think I became Catholic again? As I said above, I have seen the evidence of God's existence.

The difference between you and I is that I was never agnostic.

How could you ever change your position on God when you won't even change it in the face of the very valid scientific theory of evolution!

Do you want to discuss evolution? Ok, start with this, how did non living matter evolve into living matter? Remember, according to those scientiests who believe in evolution, nothing is true unless it can be reproduced in a laboratory. So please, create some life for me so that I may believe your "theory" of evolution.

If you had lived a few centuries ago, you'd be among those who fought the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Would I? Catholics were the first to believe that fact. In fact, it is a Catholic who discovered that fact, Copernicus.

So what makes you so sure that I wouldn't believe Copernicus? Maybe I would have been on of his Catholic assistants?

Because when Bin Laden spoke for God on 9/11 thousands of Americans died. It can be dangerous. Why can't you understand that?

And when the Kmer Rouge killed so many millions, they spoke for atheists. Why can't you understand that?

And it is the teachings of Jesus Christ which abhor any such behavior and teach against it. Why can't you understand that?

Again, I don't care. I care about people flying planes into our buildings. And people who think that they have a direct line to god and know what pleases Him. These are the people most likely to commit such an act. That's what I care about!

No, that is what you focus upon when you try to change the subject of a thread. The fact is that atheists are the most dangerous people in history. But apparently you don't care about that.

The original question asked of you was, "If you don't believe in God, why do you care if He is pleased by your deeds?" However, you've now admitted you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

Therefore the new question is this, "Since you believe that God might exist, why do you behave as though you are certain that He doesn't?"

Sincerely,

De Maria

SkyGem

Feb 11, 2008, 06:34 PM

Of course a non-Christian can do good, but who you are doing the good for is what makes a Christian and non-Christian different. Are you doing good for your own praise? A Christian does good so that others will praise God. Every good thing is from God. Every good work is for God's glory not ours.
God first, others second, ourselves last.
If we are doing good just for our own glory, it has no value.
God loves everyone. If an atheist saved my loved one I would never be able to thank him enough. Then I would thank God for sending this man to our family. I would know that God sent him to us for a purpose--may be to tell him the good news of Jesus.

Donna Mae, you are exactly right! I am so very glad that you have joined this forum and are participating in this topic. There are many whose eyes are so blinded by what they have been shown or told, perhaps as young children, that they can no longer see the Light of God anymore. It is sad when they make that known here by their words. They must truly think that they were made by a carved stone, the ocean, an animal or perhaps a tree. That is truly sad that they refuse to give the Creator credit for their very life and being. But God continues to watch what they will do and say, giving them every opportunity to Change and Believe.

What I will say to these un-Believers is that they need to see that they are being given an opportunity to Save themselves, and it is tragic not to take it. The weight of their decision will be quite heavy once they are gone from this Earth, and at some point, they will remember those of us who tried to show them The Way by lighting their path towards God. But once they are standing before Him during the judgment, it will be too late to make amends. God is giving each one of these people the chance and the choice to make Now. It is now up to them. But there is truly no middle way. For they are either WITH God or against Him. No amount of talk or trying to get around the issue will convince the Lord that they "may" be with Him unless they either Accept Him openly or reject Him unequivocally. The choice is theirs to make but I pray they make the right choice that will live with them throughout eternity. And especially those who choose to not believe what is being said here, when the time comes, they Will Remember that they had a Choice but willfully decided to take a permanent walk down the wayward path leading away from and opposite to God's Heavenly gates. Fortunate are those who walk with Christ and have accepted Him and whose heart is in Jesus for they will be Saved.

inthebox

Feb 11, 2008, 08:10 PM

To the OP:

"Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"

The key phrase is "in the sight of God, " and skygem, DeMaria have answered that using the Bible, God's own words.

Can non-believers do good? Sure they can. In my eyes, in the eyes of their fellow human beings, sure, absolutely. But Romans 3:23.

The tricky thing is we don't truly know who is "in the sight of God," only God knows.

Someone taught me this sports analogy.

Belief in Jesus Christ /God as lord and savior is like automatically being on the winning - in the end - football team. You can sit back and produce little fruit and not do much"good."
That is never get off the bench, or you can glorify God's team by participating in deeds and actions.

If you don't believe, you can pass for 500 yards, and do all the good you want, but in the end you are still on the losing team.

God's goodness is that even if I'm a 98 pound weakling I can be on the winning team.
I can be in His presence for all eternity. God gives us that choice. He does not expect you to be a 1000 yard rusher to get on His team.

And lobrobster, it is the cruel god that expects you to be the star quarterback otherwise you get cut. It is the cruel god that expects you to be "good" in thoughts, deeds, actions every second of your life in order to get into Heaven. He knows that in our sinful fallen state that our flesh cannot be "good" every second, and again, His goodness is manifest by His mercy and forgiveness.

And Hell is being separate from God. We have free choice in this matter. Here on earth, in this lifetime, we can see a glimpse of what being separate from God means, it is in the news everyday, all the suffering and tragedy.

And the larger question is... who are we to judge?

For example, a believing alcoholic who struggles daily and has occasional binges may not be "good" in my eyes. But I don't know that a year ago, through God's power, he has stopped beating His wife and driving drunk.

The married faithful businessman in a 3 piece suit may go to church services regularly and tithe and appears "good" better in my eyes, but I don't truly know if He is a believer , or what his motivations are.

Good question kick...

lobrobster

Feb 11, 2008, 11:24 PM

And when the Kmer Rouge killed so many millions, they spoke for atheists. Why can't you understand that?

I don't want to hijack this thread, but you keep bringing this up (talk about who likes to change subjects). Kmer Rouge did NOT speak for atheists! He spoke for himself and his warped idea of communism. Seriously, do you even know what atheism MEANS De Maria? On an intellectual level, not your biased assumption of the word. Atheism is simply the rejection of a belief in god. It does NOT forward any new beliefs. Why don't YOU start a thread on the evils of atheism and I'll be glad to respond. Going back through time more people have been burned at the stake and killed in the name of religion than any other reason (including warped communistic ideologies). NO ONE ever committed genocide simply because they didn't think there was a god. They might not have thought there was a god, but that fact had NOTHING to do with their atrocities. They killed for political gain and the fact they might have been atheistic was nothing more than coincidence. The same cannot be said for those who killed in the name of religion. It is no coincidence that the reason fanatical Islam is waging jihad is precisely because of what they believe about their religion. Again, this isn't the place to discuss this and I'm not sure what that place would be on the askme forum. But you are so wrong about this, it's not even funny.

I believe all three are rational positions, belief, non belief and uncertainty.

How can they all be rational? How can it be rational for me to say I know for sure there is no god? I strongly suspect this is the case, but since I cannot prove it, it is irrational to say I know with 100% certainty. It's a simple math problem. And let me guess... You're not very strong in math, are you? If you were, you'd immediately see how ridiculous your above assertion is that all 3 are equally rational.

Not really. I was born Catholic, became atheist and now I am Catholic again.

We have similar backgrounds. I was also brought up a Catholic, but once I became an atheist I stuck with my enlightenment.

Do you want to discuss evolution?

Again, I'm not going to hijack this thread anymore. I WILL start a thread on evolution if you'd like. For now, I'll just respond to this little gem of yours...

Remember, according to those scientiests who believe in evolution, nothing is true unless it can be reproduced in a laboratory. So please, create some life for me so that I may believe your "theory" of evolution.

I really don't mean to be offensive here, but it never ceases to amaze me how indifferent many of you guys are to making utter fools of yourselves. You don't even know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis! When you say, 'most' scientists... Pretty much ALL scientists accept ToE. There are a couple of crackpots in every crowd, but well over 98% of the members of the International Scientists Association accept evolution as fact. Abiogenesis is a different story. That's the question of how life first got started. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Seriously... Read a book on some of these things, or at the very least look into the subject before professing such ignorance about it. I don't mean to be rude, but it's exasperating talking to theists sometimes. You simply parrot creationist literature and it is obvious to any reasonably educated person that you don't know a thing of what you're talking about.

De Maria

Feb 11, 2008, 11:53 PM

I don't want to hijack this thread, but you keep bringing this up (talk about who likes to change subjects).

Read the messages. I keep bringing it up IN RESPONSE to your accusations that religious people are the worst killers.

Kmer Rouge did NOT speak for atheists! He spoke for himself and his warped idea of communism. Seriously, do you even know what atheism MEANS De Maria?

I do. Apparently you don't since you kept saying you don't believe in God and suddenly you aren't quite sure.

On an intellectual level, not your biased assumption of the word. Atheism is simply the rejection of a belief in god. It does NOT forward any new beliefs. Why don't YOU start a thread on the evils of atheism and I'll be glad to respond. Going back through time more people have been burned at the stake and killed in the name of religion than any other reason (including warped communistic ideologies). NO ONE ever committed genocide simply because they didn't think there was a god. They might not have thought there was a god, but that fact had NOTHING to do with their atrocities. They killed for political gain and the fact they might have been atheistic was nothing more than coincidence. The same cannot be said for those who killed in the name of religion. It is no coincidence that the reason fanatical Islam is waging jihad is precisely because of what they believe about their religion. Again, this isn't the place to discuss this and I'm not sure what that place would be on the askme forum. But you are so wrong about this, it's not even funny.

False. Atheists have killed more people than all other groups of people in human history combined.

How can they all be rational? How can it be rational for me to say I know for sure there is no god? I strongly suspect this is the case, but since I cannot prove it, it is irrational to say I know with 100% certainty. It's a simple math problem. And let me guess... You're not very strong in math, are you? If you were, you'd immediately see how ridiculous your above assertion is that all 3 are equally rational.

Rational means derived by reason.

# consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
# intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
# capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers; "rational numbers"
# rational number: an integer or a fraction
# having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It has nothing to do with whether one is mistaken or in error. Some people make erroneous decisions, but they base them on reason. Many people who don't believe in God have thought it through and based their decision on their own reason. Many people who are uncertain about God's existence have thought it through and base their decision on their own reason. And so have those who believe in God.

The irrational part begins in claiming they believe one thing and behaving in total contradiction to what they claim they believe.

We have similar backgrounds. I was also brought up a Catholic, but once I became an atheist I stuck with my enlightenment.

Now your atheist again?

Again, I'm not going to hijack this thread anymore. I WILL start a thread on evolution if you'd like. For now, I'll just respond to this little gem of yours...

I already started one. See this thread:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/proven-lab-182291.html

I really don't mean to be offensive here, but it never ceases to amaze me how indifferent many of you guys are to making utter fools of yourselves. You don't even know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis! When you say, 'most' scientists... Pretty much ALL scientists accept ToE. There are a couple of crackpots in every crowd, but well over 98% of the members of the International Science Association accept evolution as fact. Abiogenesis is a different story. That's the question of how life first got started. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Sorry Charlie. Unless Science has made a u-turn, Abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of evolutionary theory:

,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

Seriously... Read a book on some of these things, or at the very least look into the subject before professing such ignorance about it.

I suggest you take your own suggestion.

I don't mean to be rude, but it's exasperating talking to theists sometimes. You simply parrot creationist literature and it is obvious to any reasonably educated person that you don't know a thing of what you're talking about.

I don't mean to be rude either, but the only one proving their ignorance in this discussion is you.

By the way, you neglected to answer the question and you have reverted to atheism. A position which you consider irrational.

Sincerely,

De Maria

ordinaryguy

Feb 12, 2008, 06:44 AM

I really don't mean to be offensive here, but....

I don't mean to be rude either, but....

I see this thread rapidly sliding toward closure.

NeedKarma

Feb 12, 2008, 06:50 AM

What I will say to these un-Believers is that they need to see that they are being given an opportunity to Save themselvesI don't need saving. Saving from what? Here's an idea, keep your religion as a personal thing. Do you see others here trying to convert you, telling you that you are on the wrong path? Nope, it's just you. I do good for my own sake not because I'm scared of something.

speechlesstx

Feb 12, 2008, 09:01 AM

I don't need saving. Saving from what? Here's an idea, keep your religion as a personal thing. Do you see others here trying to convert you, telling you that you are on the wrong path? Nope, it's just you. I do good for my own sake not because I'm scared of something.

You think Christians do good because they're scared of something? I don't think so.

NeedKarma

Feb 12, 2008, 09:18 AM

You think Christians do good because they're scared of something? I don't think so.Yup, salvation, hell, etc.

speechlesstx

Feb 12, 2008, 09:39 AM

Let's see if I can throw a monkey wrench in this discussion. The question was "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God," not can an "unbeliever" do good in the sight of God? If you believe the account of Cornelius in Acts 10 I'd have to say yes, a non-Christian can truly do good in the sight of God.

"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

Am I wrong?

speechlesstx

Feb 12, 2008, 09:41 AM

Yup, salvation, hell, etc.

I don't know about anyone else but when I do good for someone it tends to be out of love and compassion, not fear.

Donna Mae

Feb 12, 2008, 01:55 PM

I don't know about anyone else but when I do good for someone it tends to be out of love and compassion, not fear.

Me too. Love for God the Father, His Son (our Savior), and the Holy Spirit.

And for me, there is no other way!

SkyGem

Feb 12, 2008, 05:03 PM

Me too. Love for God the Father, His Son (our Savior), and the Holy Spirit.

And for me, there is no other way!

Count me in too!! There truly IS No Other Way! God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit! The Holy Trinity is our ONLY Hope and Our Salvation that comes from God the Son!

SkyGem

Feb 12, 2008, 05:39 PM

Donna Mae

Feb 12, 2008, 06:26 PM

SkyGem--Very good scripture.

Also Jesus' instructions when He sent the apostles out.

Matthew 10:11-14
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town."

SkyGem

Feb 12, 2008, 06:39 PM

Donna Mae

Feb 12, 2008, 06:48 PM

It is a true Blessing to have you here at this forum!

This statement goes to you too!

God bless you and keep you strong in His word. As long as we have Christ, we always have hope.

Donna

talaniman

Feb 12, 2008, 08:42 PM

All due respect, but your getting away from the main question, an missing the whole post, its not about belief or conversion is it? Can a non-Christian do good?
Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not? I think it was answered with a yes.

SkyGem

Feb 13, 2008, 05:59 PM

All due respect, but your getting away from the main question, an missing the whole post, its not about belief or conversion is it?? Can a non-Christian do good?
Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not? I think it was answered with a yes.

What Christians have written here is most germane to the question inasmuch as God is mentioned. You also have to bear in mind that the #6 posting said "Because God is not religious." That fully brought the religious aspect into the original poster's question since the #6 posting party opened that door. He again mentions God in his posting #9. From there, Christians, of course, have the right to enter the conversation about God, full-force, with conversational elements that continue to be germane. After all, this is a Christianity forum, so why should we try to "censor" what God is leading us to say. And one has to simply wonder why you would seem so peeved at people getting to know one another in this forum when discussing God's word. So, your question should really be directed to "ordinaryguy" and similar others as to why his/their tone would alert other Christians to respond as they have. And of course, if you are a Christian, the conversation at hand would not bother you at all since some aspect of Christianity is always being discussed. If you are not, I can see why it might bother you to no end. Again, whatever question asked in a CHRISTIANITY forum, a Christian person will answer as he or she feels led by the Holy Spirit. That is one thing about being a Christian, we are led by the Spirit to answer as we do, one thing a non-Believer would have a hard time understanding.

SkyGem

Feb 13, 2008, 06:09 PM

This statement goes to you too!

God bless you and keep you strong in His word. As long as we have Christ, we always have hope.

Donna

Thank you, dear one! You are so very right again! With Christ, there Is ALWAYS Hope! God Bless You Too Always!

talaniman

Feb 13, 2008, 06:36 PM

SkyGem

Feb 13, 2008, 09:17 PM

Just bringing it back to make sure of the answer, you don't mind if a non-christian interacts do you? My personal interest is the learning, to add to my own knowledge, and see how a no answer could be possible.

Do I mind if a non-Christian interacts you ask? Yes, actually I do mind and so do many other true Christians if the person asking intends to remain a non-Christian, thus, opposing God's ONLY Divine Son Jesus Christ. And a "no" answer is very possible as stated before by Christians. As for continued interaction with unBelievers, this is what actually gives us the Authority to refuse further conversations.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath Light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? On what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." -- 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-18 (KJV)

You and others of like mind can now be sure of the answer.

NeedKarma

Feb 14, 2008, 04:12 AM

Yes, actually I do mind and so do many other true Christians if the person asking intends to remain a non-Christian, thus, opposing God's ONLY Divine Son Jesus Christ. Fanatics scare me.

Allheart

Feb 14, 2008, 04:25 AM

Do I mind if a non-Christian interacts you ask? Yes, actually I do mind and so do many other true Christians if the person asking intends to remain a non-Christian,

You make my heart sad. I read this an said to myself "Oh my God". I actually have tears welled up in my eyes. How can you be so cold? God forgive me for saying that, you don't have the right to turn off the volume to any ear.

I actually question how much Christ love is in your heart. You mind? Do you? Really?
That is just so wrong. How would Jesus have answered that question?

SkyGem, you are human just like me and your response may just had a knee jerk reaction. Please forgive me for taking that statement so hard, but I just could not believe my eyes. I just don't recogonize God's love in that statement.

I am sorry and I do feel bad and hope I am not coming off as scolding you or judging you, but I just strongly disagree with it.

Those who have God's love in their heart and know God and His Son Jesus Christ do not stand taller then those who believe other things. The only differerce between someone who believes in our Heavenly Father and has Christ love in their heart and soul and those who have chosen to believe other things or take other paths... the only thing different, is as those who believe, in my opinion, have an obligation to themselves and to all people, to reflect God's love in their actions and words.

If I am wrong in what I have written may I receive God's word in my heart to know what is right.

speechlesstx

Feb 14, 2008, 05:36 AM

Fanatics scare me.

Besides the obvious question... never mind. Actually NK I agree with you - again. If a Christian doesn't interact with others regardless of their faith - or lack of - they are violating God's command, love your neighbor as yourself. Not to mention it's kind of difficult to have a mission if you have no mission field.

talaniman

Feb 14, 2008, 06:56 AM

Do I mind if a non-Christian interacts you ask? Yes, actually I do mind and so do many other true Christians if the person asking intends to remain a non-Christian, thus, opposing God's ONLY Divine Son Jesus Christ. And a "no" answer is very possible as stated before by Christians. As for continued interaction with unBelievers, this is what actually gives us the Authority to refuse further conversations.

That is so sad, and I feel for you suffering through such a handicap, may I suggest a personal relationship with a God that YOU understand? I will pray for you.

bushg

Feb 14, 2008, 07:28 AM

This is to the ones that are condemning others, and basically saying that non-christian acts mean nothing to God. I have family members that believe if you own a computer, watch t.v. cut your hair, wear make up, jewellery, have a christmas tree, listen to non-christian music or christian music of certain religions etc... that you are just as bad off or actually worse than non-believers.

Just because you can not or do not live up to their standards and their belief, does that absloutely mean that you do not matter to God.
Who are you to tell anyone that their goodness does not matter.
Like my family, who gives you the right to sit in judgement of anyone.
If I picked up the phone and called them they would want your names so that they could pray for your souls, because in their eyes surely you are going down a path of destruction. With your longings and belongings of this world. How crazy does that sound?

I have always heard people say "judge not lest you be judged" I'm not sure if I have ever met anyone that could abide by that.

SkyGem

Feb 14, 2008, 05:52 PM

I actually question how much Christ love is in your heart. You mind? Do you? Really?
That is just so wrong. How would Jesus have answered that question?

It is because of Christ's Love in my heart that I have been led to respond with the Scripture noted. I figured that non-Believers would try to use the sympathy card here to try to make others feel sorry for them, but do not be mislead for you have to know the fruit of the vine to know who you are dealing with in coming to the aid of those people. God's word is sometimes harsh but it is to teach a lesson to those who do not or will not Believe. Know that true Christians will not fall for the tricks of infidels because they know the Word of God, thus, they know exactly what infidels are trying to do with their responses.

And to answer your other question "How would Jesus have answered that question?" He would have quoted the exact same Scripture as it was His Father who gave it to Him, thus He also gave it to us, and as ONE with the Holy Trinity, Jesus could not have backed off this one just to appease infidels when the word is strictly against that. The Lord even says that in the Scripture. Please read and re-read it many times until you understand it.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath Light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? On what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." -- 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-18 (KJV)

There you go! That Is the Word of God. I cannot sugar-coat it in any way, shape or form just to make me sound more pleasant to others. Many times Biblical truth hurts those who do not Believe but of course, they always have the opportunity to Change that all by themselves after hearing the word of God. When God says something through Scripture, we Christians cannot overrule God on that! We should not have different opinions on His word which is steadfast and irrefutable. It is HIS word therefore, we follow His word and cannot have sympathy for infidels who do not want to change their way of thinking about God as the quoted Scripture plainly says. I do not know if you are a non-Believer or not, but to a Believer, God's word is irrefutable no matter how harsh some may take it to be.

If I am wrong in what I have written may I receive God's word in my heart to know what is right.

I am sure that you will receive God's word in your heart if you are a Christian, to reveal how wrong you are in coming to the aid of infidels as you would be going against Holy Scripture. But that is a personal matter of conscience after hearing God's word. Do you Believe in God's word or the word and postings of mere infidels? Again, we cannot have any sympathy for those who do not have any sympathy or respect for God's Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. That is the way it is, that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Don't you realize that infidels come only to disrespect the word of God? When have you ever heard them PRAISE Him? So, now you should know their true agenda. Haven't you read their cold postings and what they are saying? Do you still feel you can defend them over God's word? He is very clear on this matter. Lucidly clear. I will pray that you will know the difference in your heart between hearing and understanding God's word and defending infidels. But if you want to join them by going against God, who am I to stop you? I can only show you the difference through Scripture as with everyone. May God Bless you and open your eyes to see the Truth in His word.

lobrobster

Feb 14, 2008, 06:01 PM

I am sure that you will receive God's word in your heart if you are a Christian, to reveal how wrong you are in coming to the aid of infidels as you would be going against Holy Scripture. But that is a personal matter of conscience after hearing God's word. Do you Believe in God's word or the word and postings of mere infidels? Again, we cannot have any sympathy for those who do not have any sympathy or respect for God's Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. That is the way it is, that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Don't you realize that infidels come only to disrespect the word of God? When have you ever heard them PRAISE Him? So, now you should know their true agenda. Haven't you read their cold postings and what they are saying? Do you still feel you can defend them over God's word? He is very clear on this matter. Lucidly clear. I will pray that you will know the difference in your heart between hearing and understanding God's word and defending infidels. But if you want to join them by going against God, who am I to stop you? I can only show you the difference through Scripture as with everyone. May God Bless you and open your eyes to see the Truth in His word.

This wonderful piece of bigotry should do more to upset Christians than anyone else. They should be ashamed to call someone like you one of their own. You're an embarrassment to Christianity.

NeedKarma

Feb 14, 2008, 06:04 PM

I am sure that you will receive God's word in your heart if you are a Christian, to reveal how wrong you are in coming to the aid of infidels as you would be going against Holy Scripture. But that is a personal matter of conscience after hearing God's word. Do you Believe in God's word or the word and postings of mere infidels? Again, we cannot have any sympathy for those who do not have any sympathy or respect for God's Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. That is the way it is, that is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. Don't you realize that infidels come only to disrespect the word of God? When have you ever heard them PRAISE Him? So, now you should know their true agenda. Haven't you read their cold postings and what they are saying? Do you still feel you can defend them over God's word? He is very clear on this matter. Lucidly clear. I will pray that you will know the difference in your heart between hearing and understanding God's word and defending infidels. But if you want to join them by going against God, who am I to stop you? I can only show you the difference through Scripture as with everyone. May God Bless you and open your eyes to see the Truth in His word.You are a frightening person Skygem. This is the kind of talk that leads people away from religion.. any and all religion. Your post is similar rhetoric to the ones that use religion as a justification for killing others. I truly hope they are not many of your type.

Allheart

Feb 14, 2008, 06:06 PM

Hi SkiGem,

First I want to apologize to you for ever questioning the love you have for Christ in your heart. That was wrong of me and I am very deeply sorry.

I don't know what to say about the rest. It makes me sad and cry. It honestly does. I can't even think straight. I read your words several times.

Then only thing I do know is I love God and would never consciously go against him. EVER.
When I sin, I go against him, but I did not realize loving my brothers and sisters would be going against them and that makes me so sad.

I thank you very much for explaining your reasoning to me and feel terrible about some of what I wrote. But because I love my brothers and sisters no matter what... makes me a
Non-beleiver? Makes me go against God? I will really need to pray on it.

I also need to take myself to see a priest and ask these questions that I have in my heart. Whenever I would seek council of a priest no matter what the circumstances, I instantly had a clear understanding.

SkyGem - Again I am sorry - if I hurt or upset you. That was wrong of me.

I will continue to love and show concern for anyone that I think may be hurt.

But as I said, I really should speak to a priest, it seems it is the only time I can freely accept things.

This all makes me sad at heart - and now you planted a seed in my mind that being sad in heart for all no matter what, goes against God.

And trust me, no one was seeking my sympathy. That I do know.

Allheart

Feb 14, 2008, 06:18 PM

God is so good :)

I still am a bit sad at heart... buuuuuut look a this. Now I am not one to quote bible scriptures, not at all. But I might be right.

God commanded us to love each other. He did not say... Love one another that Loves me... He said... Love one another as I love you.

How can you not embrace these scriptures:

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=love+one+another
love one another - King James Version - Bible Search (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=love+one+another)

Allheart

Feb 14, 2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I don't mean to be sarcastic, but maybe it's because they believe 'our Father' is going to torture them for eternity anyway. What's a little ranting and raving compared to what you so gladly accept to be in store for non-believers?

This is what I said:

I'm sorry Lob - I don't understand what your saying. Forgive me. And you may have misunderstood what I said.

I was not directing it to anyone, and honestly I don't really see the ranting and raving in this thread, but did you ever come across those that have the bible in one hand, and scream that those who don't accept Jesus are going to hell, that gays are doomed. But it's not done in a loving way, it's done in an angry way. That is what I was referring to.

I am sorry that I wasn't understanding your thoughts. I don't gladly accept what is in store for non-believers, I honestly don't even let my mind go there. I pretty much am trying to clean my act up so I can more easily do right the it be such a struggle. And when I pray more and remember what is important, it is so much easier.

Does that make sense?

Comments on this post
Love-Life disagrees: Oh my god are you out of your mind? Whats "going to happen" to people who don't beleive in god? What happens to everyone in the world who isn't Christian? Who is Hindu or Muslim or Buddist? Are they going to hell too? YOUR CRAZY.

************************************************** ******************

Love Life - I think you may have misunderstood or I am misunderstanding you. The top of my original post above ....was a quote from someone else. I have never said anyone was going to hell.

And I really wish you wouldn't have called me crazy - Allheart will do.

There's no need to be unkind Love Life. But I do think you need to go back and read the post that I wrote before you go on the attack. Actually you shouldn't be attacking anyone.
Hope you see the misunderstanding.

SkyGem

Feb 14, 2008, 09:29 PM

Hi SkiGem,

Warm greetings, Allheart!

First I want to apologize to you for ever questioning the love you have for Christ in your heart. That was wrong of me and I am very deeply sorry.

Apology accepted. I forgive you in Christ Jesus and it need not bother you anymore.

I don't know what to say about the rest. It makes me sad and cry. It honestly does. I can't even think straight. I read your words several times.

Then only thing I do know is I love God and would never conciously go against him. EVER.

I can hope to sense that, Allheart. You are a good person deep down but also care for your fellow man even when their words may tend to confuse you in their true meaning.

When I sin, I go against him, but I did not realize loving my brothers and sisters would be going against them and that makes me so sad.

Loving One Another is not a sin, for as you know, Jesus said we should do that and I hope you too would reach out to infidels and love them enough to offer them a chance to Change from their un-Believing ways. And as a person who truly cares about those who are lost in the sin of being un-Believers, I have reached out to them in true Love because I want only the best for them and their souls. But they have not listened, they continue to reject the word of God. They have literally turned their backs on the Only One True God, Jesus Christ. But if I am wrong, let the un-Believers correct me on this immediately! I stand ready to accept them with OPEN ARMS if they say they Believe in Jesus Christ and will accept Him as their Lord and Savior because Scripture tells us unequivocally that He is the One and Only true God! They would need to openly give testimony of their acceptance and Belief in Jesus Christ as God expects all Believers to do that and that is why we Christians do so so very often! I stand ready, at this very moment, to listen to those who have Changed their ways to accept Him! Let us now see how many will respond to this call.

I thank you very much for explaining your reasoning to me and feel terrible about some of what I wrote. But because I love my brothers and sisters no matter what...makes me a
non-beleiver? Makes me go against God? I will really need to pray on it.

Allheart, because you love your brothers and sisters does not make you a non-Believer if you are a true Christian Believer to begin with, inasmuch as you have not stated that you love infidels that hate God and thus Jesus Christ. Had you made that statement, I could not defend your actions. The only thing I cannot speak to, as it is not my place but rather God's, is if you would continue to embrace infidels knowing that they continue to live in sin by continuing to be infidels because that is against the Scripture I have revealed to you.

I also need to take myself to see a priest and ask these questions that I have in my heart. Whenever I would seek council of a priest no matter what the circumstances, I instantly had a clear understanding.

Just as you wish, but please make sure that the priest you go to knows and understands the Holy Bible. I say this because many priests have revealed that they do not even read the Bible. That is sad indeed to learn. And if they do not read and understand the Bible as Protestants do, then how could they possibly be in a position to help you with this most important matter.

SkyGem - Again I am sorry - if I hurt or upset you. That was wrong of me.

And remember that you have already been forgiven in Christ Jesus. When one says things, sometimes they are not thinking of what they say in the energy of the moment but I am most forgiving when one comes back with contrite heart to ask for forgiveness. But truly, it does not matter about me because this is not about me, Allheart. It is about God through His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. So, you can say what you have about me so long as you do not injure the word of the Lord as that is what would truly hurt me and upset me more than you could possibly ever know or realize.

I will continue to love and show concern for anyone that I think may be hurt.

I only wish infidels would have that same degree of compassion for those who try to help them by opening their eyes to see the Word of God and how it can help Save them from their destructive way of thinking. When I quote the Bible and say what I say, I am being led to do those things by God's Spirit, you must understand. And I speak with great passion when moved by Spirit! But know and understand that even God could not love or show concern for Lucifer after he turned his back on Him. Neither can I support those who do not support the God I believe in with all my heart and spirit and who have turned their back on Him.

But as I said, I really should speak to a priest, it seems it is the only time I can freely accept things.

Please consider and be guided in that by what I have said above on that matter.

This all makes me sad at heart - and now you planted a seed in my mind that being sad in heart for all no matter what, goes against God.

Being sad in heart for a true cause does not go against God. For even God through Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother Mary feel very sad for those who do not Believe! They constantly strive to Open Their Eyes that they will See the Light, be Saved, and quit living in darkness.

And trust me, no one was seeking my sympathy. That I do know.

On another note, I will no longer knowingly respond to infidels who come to these forums to try to make a mockery of God, as to do so would cause me to have little to no belief in the very Scripture I am speaking about ( 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14-18 (KJV). And as a Born Again Christian, the Holy Spirit would not allow it unless the person professes to have Changed and has become a Believer, then and only then could we possibly have harmonious fellowship together. Remember, Jesus ate with publicans and sinners but only so they could hear His words and Change from their way of life and beliefs. When they would not, He disengaged further fellowship with them as He had given them all a fair chance to become Believers.

[/quote]

talaniman

Feb 14, 2008, 09:38 PM

I can only hope you are true to your word, so us humans, as wrong as we are, can interact and learn, without being called names and cursed.

SkyGem

Feb 14, 2008, 09:50 PM

God is so good :)

Completely Agreed! Jesus is WONDERFUL!!

I still am a bit sad at heart......buuuuuut look a this. Now I am not one to quote bible scriptures, not at all. But I might be right.

God commanded us to love each other. He did not say....Love one another that Loves me...He said....Love one another as I love you.

How can you not embrace these scriptures:

love one another - King James Version - Bible Search (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=love+one+another)
love one another - King James Version - Bible Search (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=love+one+another)
One must never lose sight of the fact that the following Scripture explains it all when dealing with those who reject God.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14 (KJV)

This means that infidels or un-Believers will never understand the things of God nor know them simply because they come from God's Spirit which they do not know nor want to know. So, when we try to speak to them about God and how they can make amends to their present life, they do not want to understand and instead become angry and go on the defensive as God's message cannot reach those who have literally closed their heart and shut the door on Him.

Therefore, we can Love One Another in the hope that our words in Scripture can Change those who have hardened their hearts to where it has almost petrified in their non-Belief. God's message to many of these people will truly move unto them and many have become Believers as they begin to understand the Lord's word from those who Love them enough to bring it to them. We must thus Love One Another to want the very best for their Salvation through Jesus Christ!

ordinaryguy

Feb 15, 2008, 06:24 AM

I will no longer knowingly respond to infidels
We should be so lucky. But I'm afraid the key word is "knowingly".

talaniman

Feb 15, 2008, 06:39 AM

Every one is an infidel, who disagrees with the stuff she spouts. Islamic radicals are like that too, hmmmm, I guess she is a christian radical.

Allheart

Feb 15, 2008, 07:23 AM

6213

Is it safe to come out now ? :).

I thank you one and all for the love and support shown. You all lifted me up. You truly did and I thank you.

( I hope no one minds my attempt at a little chuckle. I have a tendency to do that when things get difficult. Isn't that little guy too cute?)

HistorianChick

Feb 15, 2008, 07:40 AM

All right, I admit, I've stayed out of this thread simply because of the conflict that I knew was inevitable... and judging by the rapidly growing pages on the Answer forum, I knew I wasn't wrong. But alas, here I am...

I read the first couple this morning, then skimmed the next few, then ultimately hit #9, and here I am.

I just have a question...

The OP asked "can a non-Christian do good in the sight of God? why or why not?", right?

Somehow this has veered off from the OP and tragically gone the way of "what is good" rather than "can they do it."

To the Christians on here (and I am one of your number), how can what's been going on here be classified as "good?"

"...whatsoever things are true, ...honest, ...just, ...pure, ...lovely, ...of a good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Phil 4:8

I think we've not answered the original question, but simply defined that man is man... he is capable of good or bad, no matter what his spiritual state may be.

"Good" without being tempered with grace can become sadly misunderstood.... and ultimately termed "bad."

lobrobster

Feb 15, 2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobsterI was not directing it to anyone, and honestly I don't really see the ranting and raving in this thread, but did you ever come across those that have the bible in one hand, and scream that those who don't accept Jesus are going to hell, that gays are doomed. But it's not done in a loving way, it's done in an angry way. That is what I was referring to.

Yes, I've seen those people and now understand what you mean. They do seem to be preaching out of anger rather than compassion for the 'infidels'. But I honestly don't think their mindset is too far removed from someone like skygem who stubbornly (and foolishly), thinks he is right, everyone else is wrong, and that's all there is to it. It is this type of closed minded, bigoted thinking that spawns the hate you see from those preachers you talk about.

I am sorry that I wasn't understanding your thoughts. I don't gladly accept what is in store for non-believers, I honestly don't even let my mind go there.

Please forgive me, but why is it that you don't let your mind go there? Could it be because you understand all too well that this eternal torture chamber your god has set up for the rest of humanity is morally apprehensible? I think you SHOULD let your mind go there! You should FORCE yourself to really think about it logically. Only then can you realize the absurdity of such an arrogant belief. I apologize for calling it arrogant Allheart, but what other word describes such a self righteous and privileged belief that has only YOUR religion being exactly right and enjoying eternal bliss, while everyone else burns in hell for eternity?

Allheart

Feb 15, 2008, 07:56 AM

Yes, I've seen those people and now understand what you mean. They do seem to be preaching out of anger rather than compassion for the 'infidels'. But I honestly don't think their mindset is too far removed from someone like skygem. He stubbornly (and foolishly) thinks he is right, everyone else is wrong, and that's all there is to it. It is this type of closed minded, bigoted thinking that spawns the hate that you see from those preachers you talk about.

Please forgive me, but why is it that you don't let your mind go there? Could it be because you understand all too well that this eternal torture chamber your god has set up for over half the people who ever lived, is morally apprehensible? I think you SHOULD let your mind go there! You should FORCE yourself to really think about it logically. Only then can you realize the absurdity of such an arrogant belief. I apologize for calling it arrogant Allheart, but what other word describes such a self righteous and privileged view that has only YOUR religion going to eternal bliss and everyone else burning in hell for eternity?

Hi Lob -

I just will keep this brief as I am sometimes take things internally too deeply and it kills me to cause any upset and makes me so sad and sometimes overwhelms me and it seems the more I try to explain the worse I seem to be understood.

The reason my mind doesn't go there, is :

1) I am too imperfect... I have way too much to correct... I need to be more loving, caring, giving, kind, compassionate, understanding, unselfish... before I can even think looking over to my "neighbor" and in a way stand in judgement of them.

That is what I meant. I am to imperfect to dare take a peak at someone else and tell them there future. And I know some will Say... "God said......." Yes, he did and he was speaking to me a sinner. I am a sinner. Period.

That is what I meant. And lob I know you don't mean any harm at all I can tell.

Allheart

Feb 15, 2008, 07:58 AM

Alright, I admit, I've stayed out of this thread simply because of the conflict that I knew was inevitable.... and judging by the rapidly growing pages on the Answer forum, I knew I wasn't wrong. But alas, here I am...

I read the first couple this morning, then skimmed the next few, then ultimately hit #9, and here I am.

I just have a question....

The OP asked "can a non-Christian do good in the sight of God? why or why not?", right?

Somehow this has veered off from the OP and tragically gone the way of "what is good" rather than "can they do it."

To the Christians on here (and I am one of your number), how can what's been going on here be classified as "good?"

"...whatsoever things are true, ...honest, ...just, ...pure, ...lovely, ...of a good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Phil 4:8

I think we've not answered the original question, but simply defined that man is man... he is capable of good or bad, no matter what his spiritual state may be.

"Good" without being tempered with grace can become sadly misunderstood.... and ultimately termed "bad."

HC - you are such a wise girl and all of what you said is so very true.

lobrobster

Feb 15, 2008, 08:09 AM

Hi Lob -

I just will keep this brief as I am sometimes take things internally too deeply and it kills me to cause any upset and makes me so sad and sometimes overwhelms me and it seems the more I try to explain the worse I seem to be understood.

The reason my mind doesn't go there, is :

1) I am too imperfect ....I have way too much to correct.....I need to be more loving, caring, giving, kind, compassionate, understanding, unselfish.....before I can even think looking over to my "neighbor" and in a way stand in judgement of them.

That is what I meant. I am to imperfect to dare take a peak at someone else and tell them there future. And I know some will Say...."God said......." Yes, he did and he was speaking to me a sinner. I am a sinner. Period.

That is what I meant. And lob I know you don't mean any harm at all I can tell.

Allheart, please don't ever worry about upsetting me. I only ask that you be honest (with me, as well as yourself), in what you say, and I can never be upset at that. I still don't quite understand...

You say you need to be more loving, caring, kind, compassionate, understanding, and unselfish. Doesn't this demand that you think about all the eternally tortured souls?

If you haven't guessed it already, I used to be a Christian. It was exactly these types of problems/questions why I simply couldn't bring myself to believe anymore. I couldn't reconcile how a loving God could ever allow such an appalling fate for everyone else who didn't hold the same beliefs of my religion.

I couldn't accept many of the responses to this OP. Why a non-Christian couldn't do good in the sight of a loving compassionate God. It just didn't make any sense.

Allheart

Feb 15, 2008, 08:22 AM

Lob - First, of course I believe, God is pleased when any of us do good, ( Including non-Christians)

2) Please, I am being honest. Some people may question my sincerity but in my heart I am being honest as I can possibly be. I know I may appear to be a scambled egg :). That's because I am. Meaning, sometimes a lot of people don't get me and I am usually odd girl out. Sometimes it is so lonely and I wonder why sometimes I think so different. My husband loves me very much, but gets very frustrated with my views and heart sometimes. He thinks I see good too much and gets very frustrated as he's still not sure where I came from :).

Anyway, to be very honest, I don't often think about eternal tortured souls. My mind may wonder there and do you mean when someone first tells me they do not believe in God, do I worry for them, yes I do and my heart is sad and I feel love for them and hope that they once again will feel God's love. Yes I do. But in no way do I feel superior to them. Feeling that way, I'm sorry to me is a sin.

See, it's not that my religion is superior to anyone. I think all religions are roads to God. I have said that many times.

Now I am Catholic, is what I believe and some of what I say here would they disagree with me... probably... some of it... but they would still love me :)

lobrobster

Feb 15, 2008, 09:46 AM

Now I am Catholic, is what I beleive and some of what I say here would they disagree with me....probably...some of it...but they would still love me :)

I was raised in the Catholic faith as well. I'm sorry for trying to pin you down, but I'm sooo confused!

Imagine in the basement of your church people were being hideously tortured. How could you attend mass at this church every Sunday with a smile on your face knowing what was happening below in the basement? You seem like a nice person and I'm betting your conscience wouldn't allow you to. So why can you not apply this same logic when it comes to heaven and hell? You can't possibly think it's morally right that over half the people who have ever lived will be tortured forever and ever until the end of time.

Allheart

Feb 15, 2008, 10:18 AM

No I don't think you are pinning me down or doing it harshly. You actually are helping me sort through my own beleifs.

I think the reason that I don't hit the panic button when someone tells me they don't believe in God, is because, in my heart I know that God is a loving God and this person standing in front of me, who I do love as my brother or sister, will someday open their hearts to God.

It does make me sad that their life could be so much easier having God's love in it. Does that mean my life goes better because I believe. No, it means that having Gods' love during the difficult time carries me through time in and time out (when I remember to give it all to him)

I guess my belief is that Our Loving Father would never damn someone who is a good person but has yet to accept God in their hearts. I believe that they will before the pass on and if they don't I do believe in purgatory, where they will be given a chance to love and serve the Lord and they will be able to see things differently. That is my belief.

Grant you, the Catholic Church would not agree with me, my Mom would put me on indefinite time out and there are a couple of nuns heading my way with huge yardsticks:eek:

So who do I think will be thrown away from God? - Rapist, Murders, molesters who have not repented. Those that evil has penetrated them so much, the only thing that remains is evil.

No, I do not pick what to believe in the Catholic Church. I love my religion as it is what gives me the vision to see God. But I also realize, the Church consist of humans, who are fallable. So I pray on all things and give great thought to all things (when I think) and be sure in my heart that I am in line with God's Will.

Thank you for this disccussion - you are helping me find my way a little more. Truly.

lobrobster

Feb 15, 2008, 10:42 AM

Please consider and be guided in that by what I have said above on that matter.

Anyone who would be guided by something you said, should have their head examined. I have nothing against those with faith, but you take intolerance to a new level. You wear your ignorance on your sleeve as though it were something to be proud of.

Yet, something puzzles me:

God's Word is indeed *infallible*. It's man's mis-interpretation and re-interpretation of it that I am concerned about.

Not a bad signature. Why not heed it yourself?

speechlesstx

Feb 15, 2008, 10:56 AM

I think we've not answered the original question, but simply defined that man is man... he is capable of good or bad, no matter what his spiritual state may be.

Actually, I thought I answered the question (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/can-non-christian-do-good-182162-post877395.html#post877395). Anyway, nice post HistorianChick :)

speechlesstx

Feb 15, 2008, 11:06 AM

HistorianChick agrees: LOL! Sorry... that was page 6... I had skipped to 9 by that time! :) Good answer, though!

No prob, I was just fishing for attention. Oops, was that 'bad?' :D

MoonlitWaves

Feb 15, 2008, 02:49 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God?

Yes

Why or why not?

2 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receieve the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those books, according to their works."

There are many other verses that say we will ALL, every one of us, will be judged based upon our works whether they are good or bad. Every one includes the saved and the unsaved. Since we will all be judged upon the good and the bad we did while we are living, it, in my mind, is very safe to say the unsaved will be judged upon the good they did as well. That would mean they can do good in God's eyes.

bagel sandwich

Feb 24, 2008, 06:53 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
Actually , none of us are truly good. In the Bible it states that the only one who can be truly called good is God. We are not good enough , not Christians , or otherwise.
We are all to do our best to follow Christ's example, but we will always fall short.
That is why Jesus died for us . He died to take our short comings (sins) upon himself , so that we could be forgiven and cleansed and live with him in Heaven when we pass away.
It is about being saved.

SkyGem

Feb 24, 2008, 07:19 PM

Actually , none of us are truly good. In the Bible it states that the only one who can be truly called good is God. We are not good enough , not Christians , or otherwise.
We are all to do our best to follow Christ's example, but we will always fall short.
That is why Jesus died for us . He died to take our short comings (sins) upon himself , so that we could be forgiven and cleansed and live with him in Heaven when we pass away.
It is about being saved.

You are exactly right! Jesus was/is without sin, we are not. And it IS about being Saved. That should be the goal of every human being on this planet -- to be able to take care of their soul and spirit once they are gone from this physical world because the world of Spirit, in Heaven, is eternal and forever, unlike this one where your life is truly very short by comparison. If one does not look after their own soul to want only the very best for it, who else will care enough to help them? Truly, no one else, except Jesus! And it makes Him very happy when people will accept Him as their Lord and Savior, thereby, assuring their Salvation in the Afterlife.

talaniman

Feb 24, 2008, 07:52 PM

I agree our time on earth is very short, and as humans we can at least do our best to do what's right, for ourselves and others. Falling short, is no reason not to keep trying.

ineedhelpfast

Feb 27, 2008, 07:56 PM

Of course when a man or woman does good in his or her own eyes it is good, but when God sees it is not good because no matter how many "good deeds" we do, the fact is that we were born in sin. But the thing is that he loved us even before we loved him. So while you continue to doubt and mock his followers he still loves you and longs for a relationship you.

MoonlitWaves

Feb 27, 2008, 08:08 PM

I agree that our good deeds is no where near good enough to save ourselves. We most definitely need Jesus for that salvation. And yes, the Bible does say that none is good but God, but this does not imply that we cannot do good. We most definitely can do good... not only what we as imperfect humans consider as good, but what God sees as good.

Donna Mae

Feb 27, 2008, 08:33 PM

the fact is that we were born in sin. but the thing is that he loved us even before we loved him. so while you continue to doubt and mock his followers he still loves you and longs for a relationship you.

He loved us even before we loved him. He knew us before we were born, so I can't understand why we were born in sin.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to understand why you believe it is a fact, that we were born in sin.

lobrobster

Feb 27, 2008, 09:13 PM

He loved us even before we loved him. He knew us before we were born, so I can't understand why we were born in sin.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to understand why you believe it is a fact, that we were born in sin.

Because if Christians aren't made to believe they are born wretched, worthless, and unworthy of heaven, it would put churches out of business, that's why!

Seriously, I think it has to do with inherited sin from Adam & Eve. Are you of the opinion that humans are NOT born of sin? You'd be in the minority of Christians that I know. Unless I have you confused with someone else. You ARE a believer, right Donna?

ineedhelpfast

Feb 27, 2008, 09:14 PM

OK donna I could definitely see how you could have a hard time believing or seeing that we are born in sin. Ti just basically boils down to what you believe. Since I believe in the bible, I believe that when adam ate the fruit that God specifically told him not to, this is when sin enter the world. Does that help?

Donna Mae

Feb 27, 2008, 09:31 PM

ineedhelpfast

Feb 27, 2008, 10:11 PM

romans 5:12- the rest of the chapter. A good example of this is, its pretty crazy but my little sister who is only two, knows how to lie and not tell the truth. I mean no one had to teach her how to do it, she already has the nature of sin to do it

firmbeliever

Feb 27, 2008, 10:23 PM

ok donna i could definitely see how you could have a hard time beleiving or seeing that we are born in sin. ti just basically boils down to what you believe. since i beleive in the bible, i believe that when adam ate the fruit that God specifically told him not to, this is when sin enter the world. does that help?

Does this mean that a baby will go to Hell if he dies in infancy?

lobrobster

Feb 27, 2008, 10:48 PM

I to believe that sin started with Adam, but why does that mean that a baby is born in sin? God said to Eve, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing," and to Adam, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life."

lobrobster, Yes it is true, I do not believe that humans are born in sin. And yes, I am very much a believer. Jesus is the only way to heaven. I also believe that the Bible is the only true word of God, which makes it hard for me to believe that we are born in sin. Just wondering where you read this in God's word?

I've never read the bible, but am in the process of searching for which one to buy and read (if you have any suggestions on which bible I should get, I'd be grateful). But for now, I'm being 'coached' on the bible and the ways of Christian belief. I'm trying to learn more about 'faith' in general. Someone whom I respect very much as being not only a good Christian, but also very knowledgeable about the bible, insists we are all born of sin. We all inherit the original sin of Adam & Eve. Do you interpret the bible differently Donna? Are you saying that we've already paid the price for original sin by toiling for our food and painful childbirth?

nicki143

Feb 27, 2008, 11:21 PM

I do not believe in god but I do good everyday or I like to think so so I bring my children up with manners and they are very loving.
My parents are foster carers and I ofter have there children thinking of fostering myself.
I have eldery neighbours who I often help with shopping etc.
And I do not drink or gamble I know I do good in my life nad do not need some god to tell me that.

talaniman

Feb 28, 2008, 07:50 AM

Maybe we should see the other side of the question, Can a christian do bad? The answer still comes up yes! And unlike the originalquestion, there is plenty of proof of that.

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
As humans we have different ideas, and interpretations, and points of view. It seems this is a question for God, and speculating, and giving opinions, is a nice debate, but it's the God you believe in, that has the final say. Just my opinion. Being of no particular religion, and loyal to no bible, with all due respect to those that are, I could not follow any thing man has put forth, no matter where they say it comes from, I can try to be good, as I can be, today, here and now, and trust the God that I understand knows that. I also believe, just me, that segregating ones self, and cursing all other who do not agree, is wrong in the eyes of the Creator, as there is only one, God, and one race, human, and we should be all working together and sharing, and congregating, not fighting wars against each other, in the name of your God or mine. That's ludichrist, and entirely mans doing. So tolerance, respect, and love, is all we should be pontificating. Not cursing one another because of what book you read from, or what day you deem is holy. So close your minds to all, but your way, if you must, but it will be up to OUR maker to decide, whether your right or not, I choose to listen, and then decide, because that's what I choose to do with MY God given choice. Whatever your decision, I ain't mad atcha. I pray for you, just as you pray for me, seems that's a good thing. Isn't it?

ineedhelpfast

Feb 28, 2008, 08:54 AM

Thank you 4 sharing your piece.
After all this web sites main purpose is so that we can learn from each other

Dark_crow

Feb 28, 2008, 10:49 AM

Reading through many of the prior responses leads me to believe there are many who misunderstand the concept of Original Sin…Sin occurred first in the spirit realm before its introduction on earth. For unknown ages full harmony with God prevailed in the universe. Disruption came through a spirit creature referred to simply as the Resister, Adversary (Heb. Sa•tan´; Gr. Sa•ta•nas´; Job 1:6; Ro 16:20), the principal False Accuser or Slanderer (Gr. Di•a´bo•los) of God. (Heb 2:14; Re 12:9) Hence, the apostle John says: “He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning.”—1Jo 3:8.

As we know from reading Gods word the Bible Satan lied and tempted the free will God bestowed on Adam and Eve and they sinned…which means, Everlasting life for Adam, Eve and their descendents was revoked and death (Sin in this particular sense) was the wages of that sin. Death with old age and all that accompanies it was passed on to mankind.

ineedhelpfast

Feb 28, 2008, 11:09 AM

Right and god never intended hell for humans only satan and his demons, but since man sinned we are cursed with it

lobrobster

Feb 28, 2008, 11:59 AM

Reading through many of the prior responses leads me to believe there are many who misunderstand the concept of Original Sin…Sin occurred first in the spirit realm before its introduction on earth. For unknown ages full harmony with God prevailed in the universe. Disruption came through a spirit creature referred to simply as the Resister, Adversary (Heb., Sa•tan´; Gr., Sa•ta•nas´; Job 1:6; Ro 16:20), the principal False Accuser or Slanderer (Gr., Di•a´bo•los) of God. (Heb 2:14; Re 12:9) Hence, the apostle John says: “He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning.”—1Jo 3:8.

As we know from reading Gods word the Bible Satan lied and tempted the free will God bestowed on Adam and Eve and they sinned…which means, Everlasting life for Adam, Eve and their descendents was revoked and death (Sin in this particular sense) was the wages of that sin. Death with old age and all that accompanies it was passed on to mankind.

First, I thought satan was once in the good graces of God? Also, exactly what was it about the temptation of eating an apple that was so sinful? Why couldn't God have waited at least until a murder took place?

lobrobster

Feb 28, 2008, 12:01 PM

right and god never intended hell for humans only satan and his demons, but since man sinned we are cursed with it

If God never intended for humans to sin, why did He put a forbidden tree in the garden? Personally, I think it was a set up.

NeedKarma

Feb 28, 2008, 12:03 PM

If God never intended for humans to sin, why did He put a forbidden tree in the garden? Personally, I think it was a set up.Entrapment. That's not nice.

Dark_crow

Feb 28, 2008, 12:35 PM

The common tradition as to the apple's being the forbidden fruit of Eden is without any Scriptural basis whatsoever.
Angels as well as Humans were given the gift of free-will; some people simply choose bad behavior over good.

firmbeliever

Feb 28, 2008, 12:49 PM

Reading through many of the prior responses leads me to believe there are many who misunderstand the concept of Original Sin…Sin occurred first in the spirit realm before its introduction on earth. For unknown ages full harmony with God prevailed in the universe. Disruption came through a spirit creature referred to simply as the Resister, Adversary (Heb., Sa•tan´; Gr., Sa•ta•nas´; Job 1:6; Ro 16:20), the principal False Accuser or Slanderer (Gr., Di•a´bo•los) of God. (Heb 2:14; Re 12:9) Hence, the apostle John says: “He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning.”—1Jo 3:8.

As we know from reading Gods word the Bible Satan lied and tempted the free will God bestowed on Adam and Eve and they sinned…which means, Everlasting life for Adam, Eve and their descendents was revoked and death (Sin in this particular sense) was the wages of that sin. Death with old age and all that accompanies it was passed on to mankind.

That is exactly how I understand it.
Satan wasn't an angel either.

Children are born innocent and if they die in infancy they are in Heaven no matter who their parents were.

Donna Mae

Feb 28, 2008, 02:48 PM

Sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and death through sin. But through God's grace the gift of Jesus Christ, our sins can be washed away.

Ezekiel 18:20 Tells us the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

Matthew 18:1-7
The disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And He said, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

James 1:13-18
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown gives birth to death.
(When we let desires take over our lives, that's when sin is conceived, not in the womb or in heaven. Every good thing is from God, sin is from man.)

He chose to give us birth through the 'word of truth', that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created. We are the firstfruits, the very best of His creation. I can't believe that birth through the 'word of truth' could have sin.

Therefore I also could never believe that a baby or child would go to hell if they died. Their angel is always looking at God.

"This child is greatest in th kingdom of heaven."

lobrobster--Sorry to hear that you have never read the Bible. That's the only way to find the answers to the questions we have about God and life after our time on this earth is over. Please don't depend on anyone to tell you what you need to believe, that includes me also (we all need help understanding God's word, but we need to read it ourselves too).

There are too many different beliefs in this world, but there is only one God and one way to learn the truth. Read and study God's word.

You asked about Bibles. My favorite Bible is the King James Version, but for studying I also use the New International Version. The problem with the NIV is that they leave out some scriptures, but the one I have includes these omitted scriptures in footnotes.

talaniman--
I hope you don't believe that I am cursing anyone, because that is definitely not my intention. God says to teach humbly and with kindness. So if I have offended anyone, I am sorry.

I do believe that my job for God is to inform anyone I can, about our loving Savior, and hopefully that's all I am doing. I can only inform, God makes the increase.

Praying for anyone and everyone is a good thing.

MoonlitWaves

Feb 28, 2008, 04:49 PM

I agree with you Donna Mae. I don't believe anyone is born with sins of anyone else. But because of the sin of Adam and Eve I believe we are born with a sinful nature. But I believe that an infant, child or mentally handicapped person still needs saving grace. They obviously don't have the ability to not only know they must except Jesus as their savior, but they don't understand it/comprehend it either. That being said though... I still believe it is by God's grace that they go to heaven. Meaning they need grace like the rest of us.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

As far as the tree of knowledge of good and evil goes... I can't stress enough for people to stop putting so much emphasis on the actual tree. People think of the sin as simply eating from the tree, "why is eating from a tree so bad, why would eating from a tree be a sin?" This is putting entirely too much emphasis on the tree.

The sin was disobeying God by means of eating from the tree.

Credendovidis

Mar 9, 2008, 08:03 AM

Can a non-Christian do good?
.
Why not? What do you think makes you so special as Christian that only you as Christian can do good?

What about religious wars like the CRUSADES? Were they "GOOD"?

What about the Christian INQUISITION? Was that "GOOD"?

What about other historical religious persecutions by Christians? Was that "GOOD"?

Is the basis of your question not rather full of religious haughtiness, totally sidestepping the mountain of Christian wrongdoing?

I ask myself where I can do good. Not where or why others can't.
It seems to me you are on the wrong track!
.

Galveston1

Mar 10, 2008, 10:18 AM

Matt 19:16-17
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(KJV)

The answer to the question depends on what you define as "good". Jesus plainly says that only God is good. If you are asking about works that are helpful to others, then certainly non believers can do good, but no kind or degree of works will earn salvation.

NeedKarma

Mar 10, 2008, 10:33 AM

So no one can do good if you follow the bible's word. Well that's settled then. I'll continue on doing my thing.

Galveston1

Mar 10, 2008, 10:41 AM

So no one can do good if you follow the bible's word. Well that's settled then. I'll continue on doing my thing.
Nice cop out! You didn't tell us what you mean by good. What the Bible says is that no one is good enough on their own to merit eternal life. Of course, if you don't want eternal life, then it's a moot question.

ordinaryguy

Mar 10, 2008, 11:16 AM

Of course, if you don't want eternal life, then it's a moot question.
Eternal life is WAY overrated.

ineedhelpfast

Mar 10, 2008, 09:23 PM

Eternal life is WAY overrated.what makes you say that?

ordinaryguy

Mar 11, 2008, 06:22 AM

what makes you say that?
It's a fond hope, at best, while this earthly life, so full of beauty and possibility, is often compromised and denigrated and cheapened by those who assure us that the next life is worth more than this one. I'm convinced that the best way to prepare for whatever comes next is to live this life with gratitude and respect and acceptance of the wonderful opportunities that it affords.

NeedKarma

Mar 11, 2008, 06:33 AM

ineedhelpfast

Mar 11, 2008, 09:36 AM

What you say is true about gratitude and respect and so on, but I don't neglect this life because of a better one, if anything I try to help others enjoy this life, it is very sad to see all the depression and anger in our society. From school shootings to suicide. I don't press my beleifs on anyone, I just show them what god has done in my life, and its amazing

Galveston1

Mar 11, 2008, 06:00 PM

It's a fond hope, at best, while this earthly life, so full of beauty and possibility, is often compromised and denigrated and cheapened by those who assure us that the next life is worth more than this one. I'm convinced that the best way to prepare for whatever comes next is to live this life with gratitude and respect and acceptance of the wonderful opportunities that it affords.

What about this? Unforgiven sin keeps people out of Heaven and sends them to Hell. Sin also leads to STD's, alcoholism, broken homes, rape, murder, politicol corruption, wars, etc. Now if I lead a life aimed at Heaven, I'm going to miss all those bad things, so I'm in great shape. I will have a good life here if that is all there is. Those, on the other hand who dismiss all possibility of a hereafter- - - -.

NeedKarma

Mar 11, 2008, 07:11 PM

Sin also leads to STD's, alcoholism, broken homes, rape, murder, politicol corruption, wars, etc. Now if I lead a life aimed at Heaven, I'm going to miss all those bad things, so I'm in great shape. I will have a good life here if that is all there is. Those, on the other hand who dismiss all possibility of a hereafter- - - -.The problem with your little theory is that christians "sin" just as much as non-christians, there really is no difference. Conversely there are just as many good people who are christian as non-christian.

Fr_Chuck

Mar 11, 2008, 07:21 PM

A christian lives or tries to live a life style that is not always the same as the world, do some fail, of course, but in the end, in the eyes of the world, does no christians do good, yes, they help others, they do great works in the eyes of man, so often the worst sinner can be proclaimed to be the greatest best good person in the world.

But God does not look at the list of good works, he looks for he loves and serves and has accept him as their Lord and Savior.
And the largest difference in sin in the Christian, he is forgiven of those sins, and is not condemning thierself with that sin.

And to those that have no faith or hope for salvation, of course eternity is over rated, since of course they don't accept the fact that they will not be part of the eternal home.

ordinaryguy

Mar 11, 2008, 07:24 PM

Those, on the other hand who dismiss all possibility of a hereafter- - - -.
I don't dismiss all possibility of it, I just don't think it has any real bearing on the proper way to live this life, i.e. kindly, gratefully, and generously. If there is an afterlife, I'll be glad, but I don't need the promise of it to induce me to live this one well. Would you become selfish and cruel without the threat of eternal punishment and the promise of eternal reward? I doubt it, actually.

talaniman

Mar 13, 2008, 01:14 PM

The God that I understands, puts more in the actions, that we humans do, than the lip service spent about TRYING to be right, as we are no different, no matter what name, or group, we put ourselves in, or book we read. We are just dumb humans, who know no better, but keep hoping.

Credendovidis

Mar 23, 2008, 06:29 AM

... We are just dumb humans, who know no better, but keep hoping.
You may be, but I disagree with you on that. You can know better. You even should know better. But because your morals and ethics are based on the Christian basics you seem to lack the need for argumentation and justification for your views.
Nothing wrong with hope. But hope alone will hardly ever lead to anything better. You have to put more into that than just hope.

Fr_Chuck

Mar 23, 2008, 06:42 AM

You may be, but I disagree with you on that. You can know better. You even should know better. But because your morals and ethics are based on the Christian basics you seem to lack the need for argumentation and justification for your views.
Nothing wrong with hope. But hope alone will hardly ever lead to anything better. You have to put more into that than just hope.

But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.
And of course as many say here morals and ethics are not just a Chrsitian issue but a issue of society, And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs. Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right, but when they wish to challenge those that believe they wish to merely try and take away that hope and belief form others.

I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure atheist, but are really those working for the other side, If one attacks one belief, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a belief of nothing.

Credendovidis

Mar 23, 2008, 07:37 AM

But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.

I do not need hope for a life after this to be a good human being who does the right thing now. Only a donkey goes after the carrot...
.

... of course as many say here morals and ethics are not just a Christian issue but a issue of society ...
The problem with that is that so many here BELIEVE that morals and ethics are a Christian issue!
.

And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs.
That is an invalid suggestion, because many here state CLAIMS that are based on what they BELIEVE, instead of being based on objective support.
Of course you do not have to justify whatever you BELIEVE. But if you misuse whatever you BELIEVE as argument for the validity of your religious views please expect flack.
.

Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right ...
I don´t have any wish NOT to accept. But religious based claims make little sense to convince non-believers.
.

... but when they wish to challenge those that beleive they wish to merely try and take away that hope and beleif form others.
This is not true. From me you may BELIEVE whatever you prefer. I will even defend your right to BELIEVE whatever you BELIEVE.
It is not my intention to take away hope and/or belief from others.
All I do is clearly state that what a person BELIEVES is not therefore the one and only truth.
.

I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure athiest, but are really those working for the other side.
What a ridiculous and unsupported proposition! What other side? If I reject deities, what "other side" is there?
.

If one attacks one beleif, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a beleif of nothing.
As stated above : no belief is attacked here. But even if that were true, the argument is invalid. There is no need to believe the opposite if one argues a different personal view. Highlighting the invalidities of other views and claims is more than sufficient.
.
Your (now personal) attack at me shows that you run out of valid argumentation...
.

ordinaryguy

Mar 23, 2008, 10:04 AM

But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.Those who doubt that the next life is more important than this one are less in need of hope for it.

If one attacks one beleif, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a beleif of nothing.
Just so you know, it is possible to have no belief without disbelieving.

Credendovidis

Mar 23, 2008, 05:46 PM

Those who doubt that the next life is more important than this one are less in need of hope for it.
It's not so much a case of doubt, but much more one of total lack of objective support for the existence of any format of afterlife.
.
And besides that : why would an allmighty benevolent deity (if it exists) demand our total individual submission? The issue should be if the individual lived a "proper" life without causing unnecessary hurt to others.
.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in the Middle East due to a war supported by umpteen millions US Christians against those few not taking the Bible literally... What should a "deity" use as standard for being a good human being?
:confused:

Just so you know, it is possible to have no belief without disbelieving.
Spot on!;)

lobrobster

Mar 24, 2008, 08:10 PM

And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs.

For those who don't care whether their beliefs are true, you're right. Why justify them?

Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right, but when they wish to challenge those that believe they wish to merely try and take away that hope and belief form others.

Fortunately, there are people who DO care if what they believe is true or not. If YOU don't care, that's fine for you. But we don't all have to live like that.

I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure atheist, but are really those working for the other side, If one attacks one belief, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a belief of nothing.

What 'other' side? Do you really think that to have a lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence for is evil?

Donna Mae

Mar 25, 2008, 12:11 AM

I couldn't stand living in this evil world if I didn't have hope.
Hope for a better life after this world is gone.
Hope for God to say to me, "Your name is in the Book of Life."
Hope for eternal salvation.
Hope is a wonderful thing to have.

NeedKarma

Mar 25, 2008, 03:30 AM

I couldn't stand living in this evil world if I didn't have hope.I guess that's where we differ - you see this as an evil world. I pity you.

talaniman

Mar 25, 2008, 03:52 AM

You may be, but I disagree with you on that. You can know better. You even should know better.
We learn more as we go through life.
But because your morals and ethics are based on the Christian basics
Actually I am not a Christian.
you seem to lack the need for argumentation and justification for your views.
I have no need for validation of my personal relationship with the God that I understand.
Nothing wrong with hope. But hope alone will hardly ever lead to anything better.
Except the consideration of the life path you take and the actions that come with your choices.
You have to put more into that than just hope.
We all hope our actions produce fruit, from our labor, don't you. Hope is what motivates us to take the right action.

talaniman

Mar 25, 2008, 04:17 AM

But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.
Maybe they don't dwell on the after life, but that doesn't mean they do not strive for a good life now.
And of course as many say here morals and ethics are not just a Chrsitian issue but a issue of society,
And a matter of personal choice.
And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs.
But there is a need to respect what others believe.
Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right,
Some need more evidence than others, but that does not diminish their choices.

but when they wish to challenge those that beleive they wish to merely try and take away that hope and beleif form others.
The challenge is in the way we convey what we believe to others.
I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure athiest,
That's an opinion, and yours, but no facts to back it up, so essentually your doing the same as you say they are, challenging a belief that is not yours.
but are really those working for the other side,
The otherside of what?
If one attacks one beleif, they have to have a belief that is against it,
not merely a beleif of nothing.
There are those that don't believe as you do, disagreement and debate is hardly an attack. As you disagree with them, they disagree with you. Not only is that their right, but their choice, and they have as much right as you do, to disagree.
__________________

ordinaryguy

Mar 25, 2008, 05:57 AM

I couldn't stand living in this evil world if I didn't have hope.
If the world you live in is evil, your hope is a sham and a fraud.

ordinaryguy

Mar 25, 2008, 06:36 AM

It's not so much a case of doubt, but much more one of total lack of objective support for the existance of any format of afterlife.
Well, let's face it. There's a "total lack of objective support" for ANYTHING that's predicted to happen in the future. That by itself doesn't bunch my shorts. What bunches my shorts is the idea that THIS life in this PHYSICAL body is not inherently valuable or holy and is therefore inconsequential except as the stage set for the drama of our choosing or rejecting the next one.

It won't bother me a bit if there is a next life, in fact I hope there is. But living THIS life as though its only worthy purpose is to get to heaven is a sacrilege, as I see it. I will live this life as though it were the most precious, exquisitely beautiful, and fragile gift imaginable, and treat it with the utmost respect and attention in order to understand how to live harmoniously and rewardingly with others. If that kind of life is not proper preparation and qualification for the next one, then I'll gratefully accept this one gift as sufficient.

inthebox

Mar 25, 2008, 09:50 AM

If the world you live in is evil, your hope is a sham and a fraud.

The fact is, even all the self acknowledged non Christian / atheists / agnostics, on this thread keep on saying I'll do my best to be as "good" as I can in this lifetime.

This means that the above group acknowledges that there is right and wrong, good and evil.

Why?

As a believer, there is evil because that contrasts with the perfect holiness of God. A God that is the ultimate good. That is my hope.

If I did not believe in an ultimate "good" God, then there is only evil and ultimately despair.

And those who say that there is no evil in this world - don't kid yourselves.

NeedKarma

Mar 25, 2008, 09:56 AM

If I did not believe in an ultimate "good" God, then there is only evil and ultimately despair.
And those who say that there is no evil in this world - don't kid yourselves.That's what DonnaMae was saying of this world - that it is evil. Whereas I, and a few others, were saying that there is much good as well, in fact we see more good than evil. No one was discounting that evil exists in this world, and it is done by christians and non-christians.

Benjimeister

Mar 25, 2008, 10:39 AM

There would have to be a god for anyone, Christian or otherwise to be good in his eyes.

Donna Mae

Mar 25, 2008, 09:04 PM

l- I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that my life is less than fulfilling, far from it! I have everything I could ever want in my life. A loving Father and Savior. A wonderful (the best) family that anyone could ever hope for. I have the joy in knowing that my family are Christians and that no matter what happens in this life, we will be together for eternity.

And yes I still believe that this is a sinful (evil) world. So many murders, people who get enjoyment out others pain, so many missing children, children being abused daily.
Babies murdered and people saying, "It's my body!" I consider all of these things evil.

I do believe in God so how about I pray for you?

Donna Mae

Mar 27, 2008, 09:46 PM

I appreciate all honest questions about God and Jesus, but I don't want to get into anymore debates over whether they are real or a fairy tale.

I will say again, I know God is real and I know Jesus is our Savior and I know that the Bible is the true word of God.

And I don't believe that you are really interested in any answer I give, but I do hope that some day you will be.

Handyman2007

Mar 27, 2008, 09:50 PM

Gos is not an entity that needs to have our deeds proven to. God is merely an idea within us. Any person on Earht can do something that will show someone's God that they are good.

Fr_Chuck

Mar 29, 2008, 12:54 PM

For those who don't care whether or not their beliefs are true, you're right. Why justify them?

Fortunately, there are people who DO care if what they believe is true or not. If YOU don't care, that's fine for you. But we don't all have to live like that.
What 'other' side? Do you really think that to have a lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence for is evil?

Actually the Christian faith is justified it is call the Bible, so now accept it, well figure you won't like that answer but that is it, now the ball is in your court since God will hold you liable for your choice.

And yes, you are either for God or against God, there is no medium ground, Man is evil just because he is man it is only though Christ that there is salvation.

NeedKarma

Mar 29, 2008, 01:07 PM

Actually the Christian faith is justified it is call the Bible,That`s known as circular reasoning.

talaniman

Mar 29, 2008, 01:30 PM

Does any one besides me find it curious that the top 3 religions come from the same region of the earth? (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) Sprouted from each other, and sees the rest of the world as pagans?

scottyv

Apr 27, 2008, 03:27 PM

The bible is actually very clear on this issue. In Genesis it says that:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

What is not good is that man be alone. All the rest is religious speculation. God created and it was good. Ergo if God didn't create it, it isn't good.

Peace, Scotty

black111madonna

Apr 27, 2008, 03:46 PM

Can a non christian do good?

Well if you don't meet people... you'll never know!
And you surely need to find out yourself that's called experiencing life!

= Take whatever is coming to you... let the beauty of it move you..! =

scottyv

Apr 27, 2008, 11:45 PM

Well said!

scottyv

Apr 27, 2008, 11:51 PM

I like it, reminds me of a bible verse in 1John: Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

scottyv

Apr 28, 2008, 12:21 AM

That last quote was provocative.

lobrobster

Apr 29, 2008, 06:45 AM

Actually the Christian faith is justified it is call the Bible, so now accept it, well figure you won't like that answer but that is it, now the ball is in your court since God will hold you liable for your choice.

So...

Q- Do we know God exists?

A- Of course. The bible tells us so.

Q- How do we know to believe the bible?

A- Because it is the word of God.
----------------------------------------------------

If such logic works for you, then you're welcome to it.

I'll ask again... Why not just call it faith and leave it at that? If you think the above line of reasoning is in any sense logically 'justified' you are sorely mistaken. Had you used the same method for acquiring knowledge about all other things in life, you'd still be learning to tie your shoes.

retsoksirhc

Apr 29, 2008, 07:00 AM

Speaking of circular reasoning... and not that I'm accusing anyone of anything. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish. Circular reasoning was mentioned, and I know of a funny comic about it. Here's to lightening the mood.

scottyv

Apr 29, 2008, 10:16 AM

Actually the Christian faith is justified it is call the Bible, so now accept it, well figure you won't like that answer but that is it, now the ball is in your court since God will hold you liable for your choice.

And yes, you are either for God or against God, there is no medium ground, Man is evil just because he is man it is only though Christ that there is salvation.

Justification by faith is problematic in its many forms. It doesn't not allow for any real dialogue. Essentially Chucky you are saying that people have to believe what you believe or they go to h-e- double hockey sticks (I have to be careful what I post, they are watching me).

Just because you believe a thing and others do to, doesn't make it true. Forgive us for testing the waters here but whether you realize it or not your logic is flawed. Step away from your faith and give us some solid answers.

As for being for or against God... cosmic chessboard theology ended over a hundred years ago, come on, pick up a book catch up with the what is going on in the world. We need some serious answers. This... believe in the bible or go to hell schtick is getting real old.

No one that I know would seriously consider that a God of the universe would ask his creation to abandon their logic and reason in order to believe. It just does not make sense.

scottyv

Apr 29, 2008, 10:58 AM

So....

Q- Do we know God exists?

A- Of course. The bible tells us so.

Q- How do we know to believe the bible?

A- Because it is the word of God.
----------------------------------------------------

Lob,

If you will permit me an exercise in reference to your post I think I can demonstrate a thing.

Do we know that God exists?

No. "WE" collectively do not, that is part of the problem.

I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story). In fact, many people know to the core of their being that there is a god. We just can't agree on who or what that God is.

If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc... Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.

As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers. There are trace elements even within molecules that are found throuout the cosmos.

People need to look for God, in fact I would argue that science is actually the modern method of understanding God. Francis Collins a theoretical scientist postulates that math is the perfect language between god and humanity as it is universal in form and recognizable by all despite culture, creed, ethnicity, or station in life. Think about it, math is out there, we just have to learn the language and put characters to it, we have theoretically traveled billions of light years just by using math, it blows my mind. Now that doesn't mean we can speak to God or that it can speak back to us but consider the many things we have learned through this process. It is acutally a very accurate way to communicate as the cosmos is slowly revealed to us. I am not saying I believe this completely, but it is a much better form of communication than a two thousand year old text like the bible.

That some, maybe even most, Christians will insist that the Bible contains everything you need to know about God is absolutely absurd. However, and I say this with all seriousness, respect, and admiration for the book, and its followers.

That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another. This should not be over looked or minimalized because some very silly people believe some very silly things. Talking serpents, virgin births, resurections, healings... paaaalease!

Peace!

amIwrong

Apr 29, 2008, 11:43 AM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
That's like asking if an atheist can be ethical. Sure they can. Why wouldn't they be? The next surgeon to operate on you may be jewish, muslim, buddhist , that does not mean that they are of a different ethnic decent either. Ethnic decent may have nothing to do with a person's religion.

That question almost implies that the only good people in the world are Christians. Do you realize how that sounds? It does not sound very "Christian" that's for sure. There are a lot of good people in the world who aren't Christian. They are in every walk of life. They have professional careers to homeless people. Christians could be a child molester or not. A person's religion does not always dictate their behavior, most times it does not.

A good person may have no religion at all. If there is a God, and he/she is forgiving and loving I doubt seriously that religion does matter to a loving and forgiving God. If there is a God and he/she is hateful and a punisher then maybe it does. Is a Christian God hateful? Why don't you ask he/she? Thanks for being open minded enough to ask.

lobrobster

Apr 30, 2008, 04:38 PM

I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story).

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.

If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc...

We have a need to understand and make sense of the world around us. So we develop the axiom that 'any' answer is better than 'no' answer at all. Once upon a time, it made sense to believe in gods. Back when we didn't understand why volcanoes erupted, how tsunamis formed and had no idea about tectonic plates shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know about germs, bacteria, or viruses and had no idea why people got sick and/or died. There was a time where it may have been perfectly reasonable to invent powerful invisible beings/gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.

Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldn't be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primitive. To ignore intuition in the light of today's technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.

I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!

As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isn't the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers.

I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.

That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another.

Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED the bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

amIwrong

Apr 30, 2008, 06:45 PM

Excellent

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.

What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.

I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!

I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.

Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

scottyv

Apr 30, 2008, 07:08 PM

It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.

I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.

What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.

I can certainly see how on the surface it would seem so. However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.

The deeper we look the more questions we find. Science has not disproved God, it has merely been able to put better names to processes and create bigger and more profound questions. Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one’s self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue. We are not satisfied with distance, or space, we keep going. Once we name a thing, it is not over, we keep looking, we keep searching, we can’t look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.

A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.

I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!

While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.

I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.

They weren’t “making” one up. They used the same tools we have today. They were using reason and logic; they just had less technological tools in their tool box as we have today. We have to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong and start thinking in terms of process. Someday we might find ourselves defending scientific theory in the light of more technological processes, and we will be perpetuating the same problems.

Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.

I have read and studied the bible in all of its shame and glory. You are absolutely right. But I stand by my statement. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The teachings attributed to the person Jesus of Nazareth are quite profound. I am intentional in separating Jesus from the common belief of the bible as it is my understanding that even his apostles misunderstood him (much like the majority of Christians do today). Add Constantine to the mix and it is very hard to find the true nature of Christianity.

I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!

I agree. It is mainstream Christian dogma that makes the bible ethically and morally founded. Were they to truly read their bible with open minds they would certainly see that it is not so. However, they have spent centuries justifying their texts and muddling the minds of their followers that it has opened the door to biased subjective interpretation.
The bible wasn’t written to be a hand book for humanity (unless God is an idiot). It is a collection of texts that have been shaped and sorted to fit a theology that was sanctioned by Constantine to keep the religious and political peace in the 3rd Century.
In many instances the bible has profound, moral and ethical truths, but that is not what it is about. It also has some horrendous situations and justifications, but that is not what it is about. The truth is…it is not about anything. At best we can say that the texts are men’s interpretation of the holy or otherness in certain historical, allegorical, situational, literal, and metaphorical instances.
There is a big difference in saying that morality comes from god as opposed to morality comes from the bible. I don’t have a problem saying that morals come from God as I believe them to be hardwired, much like our instincts to love and search for meaning. People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible. The Hebrew oral tradition out dates the written text by as much as 5000 years and it would be ludicrous to presume that people prior to the bible had no morals.

For what it is worth…
~S.

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 04:27 AM

People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible.
I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.

amIwrong

May 1, 2008, 05:11 AM

I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"

I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 07:53 AM

I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.

Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.

I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...

However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.

The deeper we look the more questions we find.

This is a good thing and we should expect nothing less.

Science has not disproved God,.

Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.

Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one's self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue.

You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.

we can't look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.

Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...

You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.

A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.

This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.

While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.

I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 08:02 AM

I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"

Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

amIwrong

May 1, 2008, 09:22 AM

Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.

Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether or not the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets ya through the night, I guess.

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 10:19 AM

Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.
Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.

But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.
This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.

If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.

amIwrong

May 1, 2008, 10:31 AM

I agree as well, no doubt. I just meant how that tied into the question I wasn't sure, but wanted to clarify.
Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.

This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.

If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 10:49 AM

I agree as well, no doubt. I just meant how that tied into the question I wasn't sure, but wanted to clarify.
This is a good example of a thread that has taken on a life of its own, one not necessarily much related to the original horse, which was beat to death several pages ago. They're fun sometimes, and as long as they don't get mean and nasty, the mods usually let them run.

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 11:09 AM

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.
I think you're pushing logic beyond its useful domain here. For categorical logic like this to work, it has to be applied to a concept of "god" for which a precise and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" has operational meaning. I don't think we're there yet.

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 11:19 AM

[QUOTE=lobrobster]Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.

I will certainly put some thought into that. I have never written it down, it might do me good. Personally I think it is a story better told over a second or third shot of Tequila, both in the telling and the hearing.

I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...

It wouldn’t be the first time I will open my mind to your suggestion.

Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.

You are absolutely right. The context in which I was referring however was not the end game (whether or not God exists) it was process (how we determine whether god exists and the problems that come with the kitchen). Me, I do not think I had made myself clear.

Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.

Lets use a better medium. Likewise science can’t prove human rights or justice. Yet we have very compelling reason to know they exist. In my opinion, so you know my position, science and religion are Yin and Yang. It is human process that confuse and polarize the two.

You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.

If I implied that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence, I have not made myself clear. I thought it obvious that as a species we have lost/abandoned a large sense of our intuition. We have embraced other processes, scientific and technological and left a rent in the fabric of our psyche. I am merely suggesting that we should slow down, consider the information at hand and take a more intuitive look. It seems our voracious hunger for knowledge is ever reaching, always forward and little time is spent considering. Like the Jeff Goldbloom line in Jurasic Park, “Science can be so preoccupied with whether or not it can do a thing, that it doesn’t stop to think whether it should do a thing” (loosely paraphrased).

Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...

You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?? Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.

Lob, this is where you are wrong, I am an incredible fool :D . Again I think I have not made myself clear. I am not saying we shouldn't alter our information, as we progress. Of course we progress and make strident growth, I am merely trying to point out that we haven't really gotten very far. As to improve, well… that I am not so sure of, after all more people are starving in the world today than in any other time in history, likewise our incidence in genocidal accounts. We have weaponry that can decimate entire continents. We embrace false ideologies through the same processes that we criticize religion for. If we can’t feed or protect one another (the foundation of the human experience) how improved can our understandings be?

We can put a robot on Mars but we can't get supplies and materials to the 9th district in New Orleans even this many years afterwards. People need to eat…they should be fed, people need to be protected…they should be protected from both the elements and oppression.

California has the agricultural ability to feed the whole of the U.S. The U.S. has the agricultural ability to feed the entire world’s population. Science has determined this statistically as well as factually. Yet we throw away more food (as a nation) in 3 months than Africa can grow in a year. But I digress.

I was merely suggesting that instead of looking at it in terms of right and wrong that we view it in terms of process. By doing so we can attach ourselves to a tradition of understanding instead of isolating and polarizing our positions when in our attempts we are looking for the same answers.

This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.

My intention is not to prove or argue for God, and this would not be the first time my logic has been poor. I am merely trying to suggest another way to view it so that we can see the larger picture in hopes to graduate the argument to a position where things actually matter. Hindsight is 20/20 or so they say. The problem though is that consequence is paid long into the future. What I mean to suggest is that though they are “wrong”, and we have acknowledged that we might find ourselves just as “wrong” in the future, we are still spending our time focusing on the things that are wrong about our past instead of trying to use our progressive information for the betterment of humanity. We would rather have cell phones than place healthy running water in 3rd world nations. For all of our science and technology we have created very little GOOD. (I had to throw that part in so that amIwrong would not chastise the argument ). Is it just me or is she just way too sexy to be talking theology?

I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...

Please do not offer slack, I have been known to hang myself. Also, I would suggest that it wasn’t prediction so much, but rather conjecture based on the myths and traditions of their days, things portent and symbolic.

Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified.

I am a bit confused by your use of words. It is not my intention to draw you into a semantic argument can you clarify for me?

First, primitive refers to the earliest of our kind or species so we are heading out of context. The people who interpreted nature and as a result, postulated gods as are not primitive. They were every bit as intelligent as you or I, they just had a different set of tools to work with. We are talking about people who created calendars and mathematics, medicine and civilization, politics and government.

Second, falsified refers to altering or representing something falsely, or proving a theory false. It is important to make the distinction that these were not theoretical beliefs. As such, they were as much fact as we consider justice and human rights. They have not been disproved, or falsified, they have been moved into a different category.

The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.

Also, if I may be so bold. The theory of Evolution and Natural selection has not falsified Supreme Being creation (it has proved to be an obstacle for a literal interpretation of the Genesis text, but that is apples and we are talking oranges). Who’s to say that a Supreme Being didn’t use the process of Evolution to create the cosmos?

As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.

I am very poor at making my points forgive me. I live very much in my own head. While the supernatural have been explained in other ways those new explanations are still lacking, much like the supernatural explanations. The book isn’t closed on thunder and lightning, in fact it has opened the door to particle acceleration. We just have another piece of the puzzle, we may know the compounds involved, but what we call thunder today may turn out to be as ridiculous sounding as Thor a hundred years from now. In the process we may be closer to the answers than they were, but we have not explained Thor away, we have just re-named it. The concept is still there. It is not right or wrong…it just is.

There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying.

Actually it means that I have a personal unwillingness to believe a truth. In point of riposte it also presumes you know the truth. If you have the truth by all means offer it. I don’t see that you do. Allow me to admit my skepticisms; I have spent a lot of time trying to be objective. I believe truth is subjective so you can reason my conundrum. My life’s has directed me to question and challenge everything. Make no mistake though, I do not find it satisfying. I find it unnerving and frustrating. I do not plug God into my misunderstandings; I just find it ridiculous and irresponsible to omit God from the process when we have no answers.

But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.

This is where we part ways. God is more than “likely”, God is fact. We just have no words or characters to describe it accurately. We tried Thor, that didn’t work. We tried thunder, that hasn’t worked. We tried Evolution, that hasn’t worked. We have tried, Big Bang, that hasn’t worked. We will keep trying until we get it right. God is truth and we are all searching for it. Whether it takes the form of a benevolent creator, or a mad scientist, I am sure I do not know, but the truth is out there, we have evidence, and we keep looking. It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of process and we are part of it whether we are right or wrong.

Peace,
Scotty

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 11:21 AM

Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.

I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

amIwrong

May 1, 2008, 11:24 AM

I am on board with you 100%. I think we are talking about the same point but from different angles.
I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 11:25 AM

Ordinary,

You understood my point well, and clarified it better than I could, thank you. I would have agreed with you but "they" have taken my agree/disagree privalages from me because I disagreed too much.

~S.

amIwrong

May 1, 2008, 11:27 AM

I see
This is a good example of a thread that has taken on a life of its own, one not necessarily much related to the original horse, which was beat to death several pages ago. They're fun sometimes, and as long as they don't get mean and nasty, the mods usually let them run.

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 11:32 AM

If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have.

Then where else does he get god as an answer to anything?

And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?".

Maybe we've been talking past each other a little, because I couldn't agree more with this. Of course, we are driven by the same insatiable thirst for knowledge as our ancestors were. And of course, we will be shown wrong on many things just as they have. But what does this have to do with the question of whether there are any such things as gods?

As time goes on science replaces inefficient answers with progressively better ones. They might not be 100% correct, but they are certainly better than the answers of 1000 years ago. To see this is true, just give me one scientific answer (however inadequate) that has replaced by a better religious answer! Give me just one!. I can give countless examples the other way around where science has replaced inferior religious answers with better ones. Nothing proves my point better than this simple realization.

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 11:38 AM

I am on board with you 100%. I think we are talking about the same point but from different angles.

If you're really that bored, maybe working on your literary skills will give you something to do. :)

bsouthe

May 1, 2008, 11:38 AM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
The vast majority of people in the world are NOT christians...

Gernald

May 1, 2008, 12:11 PM

Okay, so I just found this thread and tried to read the whole thing but it got kind of redundent twords the end so I may have skipped a bit so I'm not sure if anyone has said this or not.

According to most of you I'm going to hell :-) and oddly enough I'm okay with that because your views are not the same as mine.

I think it's impossible to say if a person is going to heaven or hell or if they can do good in the sight of G-d if they are any religon, atheism included. Technically only in your heart do you know if G-d is real or not because you cannot prove his existence... it all depends on faith. You don't know until you die weather heaven or hell is even real or not and I'm not sure about you I haven't spoken to too many dead people lately.

Moreover, this question is kind of biased because if the person would have asked can a christian truly do good in the sight of G-d most of you would have said "hell yea!" because most of you are christian. Your beleifs teach you different things about different religons and there are so many religons out there and not all of them can be right about the ideas of other religons or even G-d for that matter... and please spare me and don't say that you know with all your hear and soul christianity is right because you might in your heart and soul but that is not physical evidence it is faith.

Now for my actual take on this question...
We are all G-d's children regardless of religon (yes I'm inculding Islam because Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians have and there are probably more religons that I'm forgetting that have branched off these primary three). If G-d actually loves us like we think he does he would not condem us ALL to eternal suffering unless we did something terrible (being a non-christian dosen't count as terrible in my book, sorry).

I'd like to think that G-d loves all of us equal regardless of religon, therefore we are all good in the sight of G-d.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 12:21 PM

I've always said I don't have a problem with people who are intellectually honest enough to admit they are relying on their 'faith'. It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

I do not believe that I am “relying” on faith. In fact, I will go as far as to insist that my conclusion of the supernatural is well thought out and exist on rational conjecture and evidence as supplied. I welcome your thoughts and if you can demonstrate to me how I am wrong, I will humbly acquiesce with gratitude for the superior knowledge.

You say you have a problem with this. I find it odd that your pursuit seems intellectual but you yet you seem very similar to the religious that you admonish. It seems to me you are doing the same thing they are. Telling people what they have to believe, which is counter-intuitive to intelectualism.

What is the difference between what they do and what you do? Essentially you are saying that as long as people admit that it is only faith, that it has no basis in reality, fact or evidence, that you will accept their opinions. However as soon as they place it outside of the category of faith you have a “big” problem.

You are admitting that you have a problem with people who don’t conform to your standards of how things should be looked at. You are not different, you are using the same methods from a different perspective.

~S.

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 12:45 PM

Okay, so I just found this thread and tried to read the whole thing but it got kind of redundent twords the end so I may have skipped a bit so I'm not sure if anyone has said this or not.

Then you missed all the good stuff!

According to most of you I'm going to hell :-) and oddly enough I'm okay with that because your views are not the same as mine.

We left all that hell stuff back with the religious.

I think it's impossible to say if a person is going to heaven or hell or if they can do good in the sight of G-d if they are any religon, atheism included. Technically only in your heart do you know if G-d is real or not because you cannot prove his existence... it all depends on faith. You don't know until you die weather heaven or hell is even real or not and I'm not sure about you I haven't spoken to too many dead people lately.

I for one don't know much about heaven or hell, but I think lob allow you to believe these things if you kept it in the parameters of your "faith". :D

Moreover, this question is kind of biased because if the person would have asked can a christian truly do good in the sight of G-d most of you would have said "hell yea!" because most of you are christian.

Yeah, I think you missed the past four pages or so the people you are referring to retired.

Your beleifs teach you different things about different religons and there are so many religons out there and not all of them can be right about the ideas of other religons or even G-d for that matter... and please spare me and don't say that you know with all your hear and soul christianity is right because you might in your heart and soul but that is not physical evidence it is faith.

Man you are going to get on well with Lob on that faith issue!

Now for my actual take on this question...
We are all G-d's children regardless of religon (yes I'm inculding Islam because Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians have and there are probably more religons that I'm forgetting that have branched off these primary three). If G-d actually loves us like we think he does he would not condem us ALL to eternal suffering unless we did something terrible (being a non-christian dosen't count as terrible in my book, sorry).

I think Christians deserve your criticism. If there is a god and I believe there is, we are all his creattion. As for being children, well I do not like that characterization much. It places God in the category of Father, and if that is so, he is a pretty lousy one!

I'd like to think that G-d loves all of us equal regardless of religon, therefore we are all good in the sight of G-d.

I would like to think that also. It is unfortunate that it takes a brain to think instead of warm, fuzzy emotions. If God is a father and loved us equally, he is a dead beat dad as a Good father would treat his children equally, love them equally, feed them equally, protect them equally. He/it doesn't.

It would be nice though!:(

Scotty

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 04:32 PM

I welcome your thoughts and if you can demonstrate to me how I am wrong, I will humbly acquiesce with gratitude for the superior knowledge.

I just need to be presented with this 'evidence' you speak of. I'm sure that's where we're going to disagree. :D

You say you have a problem with this. I find it odd that your pursuit seems intellectual but you yet you seem very similar to the religious that you admonish.

I don't fault you for using it, but that's a very old and tired argument. I'm not the one making any claims. I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If YOU think you do, like I said... I'm all ears.

Telling people what they have to believe, which is counter-intuitive to intelectualism.

Again, I am not in any way, shape, or form, telling anyone what to believe. I'm merely pointing out that if you want the rest of us to believe that your imaginary friend really exists, then the onus is upon you to provide some evidence this is so. Otherwise, you can't expect non-believers to take you seriously. If I told you there was a ghost living in my closet, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously unless I could offer up evidence for why I think so. (btw- I'm using 'you' in a general sense. I don't mean you personally).

Essentially you are saying that as long as people admit that it is only faith, that it has no basis in reality, fact or evidence, that you will accept their opinions. However as soon as they place it outside of the category of faith you have a “big” problem.

That is correct.

You are admitting that you have a problem with people who don't conform to your standards of how things should be looked at.

Here's the key point we disagree on. They are not just MY standards. They are the same standards you yourself would hold anyone to on any other subject except religion or theism. Think about it... What other subject would you allow me to get away with simply 'asserting' something to be true without any evidence for it? What about that ghost living in my closet? Sound plausible to you?

kameela Raghoo

May 1, 2008, 04:36 PM

Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
Where there is humanity, good is always there. Be a christian or not, be a human!

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 04:39 PM

I think you're pushing logic beyond its useful domain here. For categorical logic like this to work, it has to be applied to a concept of "god" for which a precise and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" has operational meaning. I don't think we're there yet.

I'm simply saying that one of the following propositions are true: 1). There is a god. 2). There is no god.

Do you dispute this?

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 05:56 PM

I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

There is too a Flying Spaghetti Monster... prove there is not!:D

~S.

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 05:57 PM

Conversely, where there is evil there is always humanity, be a good human!

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 06:03 PM

I'm simply saying that one of the following propositions are true: 1). There is a god. 2). There is no god.

Do you dispute this?
Yes, I do dispute it, at least until we have an operational definition of "god" to work from. Only if we can agree on a clear and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" are we in a position to apply the rules of categorical logic to determine the truth or fallacy of each statement. Until then, both are meaningless.

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 06:09 PM

Yes, I do dispute it, at least until we have an operational definition of "god" to work from. Only if we can agree on a clear and unambiguous distinction between "god" and "not god" are we in a position to apply the rules of categorical logic to determine the truth or fallacy of each statement. Until then, both are meaningless.

I was thinking this as I wrote my response and am glad you brought it up. I very much agree with you. Suppose our universe was started by a 5th dimensional kid playing with his chemistry set. Would he be considered a god? What if we are living in an alien's computer simulation? Would the alien be a god?

So you're 100% correct that we need to define what we mean by 'god'. But whichever one of these specific gods we are talking about, I think we can agree that each one either exists or does not. A biblical god who can simultaneously listen to and answer billions of prayers, either exists as stated, or does not. If one wants to assert that such a god exists, then he is obliged to offer evidence before expecting anyone else to believe it also. Would you at least agree with that?

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 06:14 PM

There is too a Flying Spaghetti Monster...prove there is not!
Well, now scotty, I have to take the lobster's side on this one. Non-existence can't be proven. The burden of proof is on the side arguing for existence.

ordinaryguy

May 1, 2008, 07:19 PM

A biblical god who can simultaneously listen to and answer billions of prayers, either exists as stated, or does not.
But a conclusion that a god with the stated attributes does or doesn't exist, has no bearing at all on the question of whether some other god with a whole different set of attributes might exist or not.

If one wants to assert that such a god exists, then he is obliged to offer evidence before expecting anyone else to believe it also. Would you at least agree with that?
As a purely logical matter, I do agree. But religious belief is not a purely logical matter. Evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Theists are perpetually pointing to this or that aspect of the world around us and insisting that it's slam-dunk evidence for the existence of god as they conceive him to be. You and I look at the same features of the same world and see no such evidence. All we see is a challenge to come up with a different explanation for the alleged "evidence", and of course, it's always possible to do so.

All these conundrums are the reason why I've pretty much lost interest in discussions about god's existence. To the extent that I'm interested in god at all, it seems to me that a more telling question is, "What attributes would a god have to possess in order to be believable to me?"

scottyv

May 1, 2008, 07:56 PM

[QUOTE=lobrobster]I just need to be presented with this 'evidence' you speak of. I'm sure that's where we're going to disagree. :D

Lob, you don’t want evidence, you have ignored vast quantities. There is so much evidence that it can’t be ignored, even by you. Prolifically published physicists think that God is a reasonable explanation to the universe (maybe not the God of the bible, but God none the less).

I don't fault you for using it, but that's a very old and tired argument. I'm not the one making any claims. I'm simply stating there is no compelling reason to think that gods exist, just as there is no compelling reason to think a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If YOU think you do, like I said... I'm all ears.

Remember, it is not my intention to convert, so I could truly care less what you believe. But if I may say so, you misrepresent yourself. You come off open minded when in actuality you are quite closed off. There are many things that there is no evidence for yet you accept them readily, where is the scientific evidence for fairness? Why would the possibility of a god be any different?

Again, I am not in any way, shape, or form, telling anyone what to believe.

No, no, of course not, you are saying that we can’t get along, if people won’t conform to your haphazard, close-minded, faulty logic.

And I quote:

Lobrobster: “It's those who insist that their conclusion that a supernatural being exists is based on some rational conjecture based of evidence that I have a huge problem with. Just call it 'faith' and we'll get along fine.

I take it back, that takes a shape and a form, I won't call it ignorance because I truly do not thing you are, but it comes close.

I'm merely pointing out that if you want the rest of us to believe that your imaginary friend really exists, then the onus is upon you to provide some evidence this is so.

I feel no compulsion to get anyone to believe in my imaginary friend, in fact, I wish I didn’t believe in it either (it would make life much more simple, ignorance is blissful) I am merely sharing my opinions. The onus is on you to open or close your mind, if you choose to only believe a thing based on evidence... well your position is flawed. You can hang your hat on evidence if you want, but you would have to dismiss many of the things that determine the human existence.

Otherwise, you can't expect non-believers to take you seriously. If I told you there was a ghost living in my closet, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously unless I could offer up evidence for why I think so. (btw- I'm using 'you' in a general sense. I don't mean you personally).

You should really use examples that are prevalent. Before it was unicorns and gremlins, now it is ghosts. That you equate the concept of god with such things really demonstrates how willingly you are to turn your brain off. Throughout history up until modern day philosophers and theologians, scientists and physicists have pondered the concept of God, have written books about the concept of God and its likely or unlikelihood. But here you are equating the concept it to unicorns, dragons and ghosts.

Here's the key point we disagree on. They are not just MY standards. They are the same standards you yourself would hold anyone to on any other subject except religion or theism. Think about it... What other subject would you allow me to get away with simply 'asserting' something to be true without any evidence for it? What about that ghost living in my closet? Sound plausible to you?

No, not ghosts nor dragons…but how about things that science has no evidence or theory for that we contend with every day like… human rights, equality, human spirit, fairness, justice, love, memories, sadness, hapiness… I could go on and on, but what's the point if there is no evidence then it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist why are we talking about it?

You know…while it may not be enough for you, just the fact that we can contemplate it is evidence enough to consider it. Well at least it is enough to demonstrate our existence, remember Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.

Take care,
Scotty

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 08:51 PM

But a conclusion that a god with the stated attributes does or doesn't exist, has no bearing at all on the question of whether some other god with a whole different set of attributes might exist or not.

I see the point you're trying to make, but it isn't entirely true. As we can begin to rule out volcano and thunder gods, then gods of the sea, sun, and mountains DO become less and less likely! Probabilities CAN be used to ascertain the likelihood of certain gods. If one doesn't understand this, then they simply don't understand math or Bayes Theorem and need to educate themselves further.

But religious belief is not a purely logical matter.

Agreed! And evidence evaluation is (or should be)! So discussion over? :)

lobrobster

May 1, 2008, 09:24 PM

Lob, you don't want evidence, you have ignored vast quantities. There is so much evidence

Vast quantities? I'm STILL listening!.

You can hang your hat on evidence if you want, but you would have to dismiss many of the things that determine the human existence.

Wait a sec... I thought you said you hang YOUR hat on evidence as well? Didn't you say you had evidence? How long are you going to make us wait for it?

You should really use examples that are prevalent. Before it was unicorns and gremlins, now it is ghosts.

You don't seem to understand that the evidence you have so far offered for the existence of god is EXACTLY the same amount we have for unicorns, gremlins, and ghosts. Basically ZERO. Nada. A big goose egg.

Well at least it is enough to demonstrate our existence, remember Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am.

Do you know how Descartes arrived at that famous quote? He realized there was nothing he could actually prove. Except... That he was thinking. Therefore, he was. It was the only thing he could prove to himself. Good luck!

scottyv

May 2, 2008, 12:52 AM

You talk a good game lob, but your denial of the obvious, and your lack of response to the "evidence" is disappointing. This was fun until you started ignoring the core of our debate. Maybe we will cross paths on another thread. Peace to you and yours!

Take care,

Scotty

ordinaryguy

May 2, 2008, 05:37 AM

I see the point you're trying to make
Yes, I think you do, but you don't like the implications of it, so you're diverting the discussion to something else.

My point is that there's no way to discuss the existence of a god without first discussing that god's attributes. But you don't want to go there because you're adamantly opposed to the idea ANY god whatsoever, regardless of attributes. Am I right?

If one doesn't understand this, then they simply don't understand math or Bayes Theorem and need to educate themselves further.
This is a gratuitous put-down. I have taken several graduate level math and statistics courses, so I'm well enough acquainted with the concepts of probability and statistical inference to know that they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Agreed! And evidence evaluation is (or should be)! So discussion over? :)
Is it? Are you unwilling to discuss my point about the subjective nature of "evidence"? Scotty sees "vast quantities" of it. You see none. How do you account for that?

Speaking for myself, I don't see anything outside myself (evident (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=evident&searchmode=none): from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. of videre "to see") that compels me to believe in god. Still, the conviction that there is a transcendent spiritual dimension to my being and consciousness has never completely left me through all the twists and turns in the path my life has taken. The source of that conviction remains something of a mystery to me, and I certainly can't provide anyone else with "evidence" that will produce a similar conviction within them. There is a saying attributed to Jesus that has always struck a chord with me:
The Kingdom of God does not come by looking for it, nor can you say 'Look, here it is.' or 'There!'. For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

To "exist" means to stand outside, so the question of some god's "existence" is really a whole different matter than whether there is a dimension of our own inner self and consciousness that transcends the mundane world of logical thought, evidence, and inference. To me, that's a far more interesting and relevant question.

talaniman

May 2, 2008, 06:10 AM

You don't have to prove the existence of God to anyone. The beauty of it is we can draw our own conclusions, and go with it any way we choose. Since everyone thinks they know better than the next about how best to do as God wishes, then do what you think best. The key is to let others exercise there own God given choice. Personally, I don't think God has , nor cares about denomination, so we all can individually do GOOD

I think ancient man was more concerned with the beliefs of what he thought were pagan tribes, and foreign conquerers, dictators and the like, so the one and only God came from that idea. I think and have said it before, take away the man BS, pomp, and ceremony, dogma, and traditions of the region, we all speak of the same GOD, as God wouldn't be concerned with such man induced crap. Mans hatred for what may be a little, or a lot different, has him blinded to all, but his own personal truth.

lobrobster

May 2, 2008, 08:07 AM

OG,

Ok, I think we've bantered back and forth now to the point where we understand each other's point clear enough and are starting to repeat ourselves. So like Scotty said, maybe we'll run across each other in another thread. I just want to respond to one very big misconception you seem to have about myself and other atheists...

But you don't want to go there because you're adamantly opposed to the idea ANY god whatsoever, regardless of attributes. Am I right?

I am not adamantly 'opposed' to the idea of god in any way. I am simply stating that there is zero evidence that one exists. Zilch, as in none whatsoever.

I am completely open to ideas on how our universe came to be, but I am not going to adjust my core axioms to think that it started from the sneeze of a 5th dimensional being without evidence this may have happened. In other words, I will dismiss such notions (as we all should), until evidence to the contrary is presented. That's all I'm trying to say.

Also, gods who take an interest in our personal lives, perform miracles, and answer prayers are significantly LESS likely than all other possible beings (be it from distant galaxies, or higher dimensions), who we might call gods that would NOT take any interest in us or even know that we exist. That's just simple math based upon existing evidence. And again, anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand math probabilities or Baye's Theorem. I have nothing else to add to this thread that wouldn't be redundant. Good luck.

scottyv

May 2, 2008, 08:55 AM

Tali,

First let me say I have appreciated your contributions on every thread we have crossed paths.

You don't have to prove the existence of God to anyone. The beauty of it is we can draw our own conclusions, and go with it any way we choose.

Yes we can't help but do this I think. People wonder and question it seems to me that somehow we all have a little piece of the puzzle to share, and it would be irresponsible to keep it to ourselves.

Yet we live in a world where this kind of subjective freedom is dangerous. While I am reluctant to go with it in any way that I choose personally, others are not and have caused a lot of damage in the world in the spirit of those conclusions.

Since everyone thinks they know better than the next about how best to do as God wishes, then do what you think best. The key is to let others exercise there own God given choice. [/QUOTE]

While I must say that I agree in principle, I also recognize the potential danger in this. I think this is essentially the paradigm we are working under presently. Unfortunately it allows for extremists. Where do we draw the line, I mean if we allowed it people would make human sacrifices again. I don't think that people really have a "god given choice" perse, at least in the sense that people's can not go around doing whatever they want as their actions have consequences that effect others who have not made those choices.

Personally, I don't think God has , nor cares about denomination, so we all can individually do GOOD

I couldnt agree more. As for good, I fear it must be qualified.

I think ancient man was more concerned with the beliefs of what he thought were pagan tribes, and foreign conquerers, dictators and the like, so the one and only God came from that idea. I think and have said it before, take away the man BS, pomp, and ceremony, dogma, and traditions of the region, we all speak of the same GOD, as God wouldn't be concerned with such man induced crap. Mans hatred for what may be a little, or a lot different, has him blinded to all, but his own personal truth.

Yes... sadly, yes. We hate ourselves and have a hard time recognizing the roots of our condition.

Peace friend,

Scotty

talaniman

May 2, 2008, 02:19 PM

While I must say that I agree in principle, I also recognize the potential danger in this. I think this is essentially the paradigm we are working under presently. Unfortunately it allows for extremists. Where do we draw the line, I mean if we allowed it people would make human sacrifices again. I don't think that people really have a "god given choice" perse, at least in the sense that people's can not go around doing whatever they want as their actions have consequences that effect others who have not made those choices.

That was my whole point, we all have a choice of the actions we take, and with that choice comes blessings, or consequences. I believe also that our actions do effect others to one degree or another, and should be considered when we do take any action.

ordinaryguy

May 2, 2008, 05:57 PM

I have nothing else to add to this thread that wouldn't be redundant.
It wouldn't be redundant to respond to this question, since you haven't done it before.
Are you unwilling to discuss my point about the subjective nature of "evidence"?

lobrobster

May 2, 2008, 07:21 PM

Are you willing to discuss my point about the subjective nature of "evidence"?

I was about to respond to this, but to be honest... Wasn't sure how to counter it. I try to refrain from spewing and am hesitant to say something unless I'm reasonable sure that I'm right, or at least giving a sound answer. I'll admit, this question gave me pause. Is evidence in the eye of the beholder? My first reaction was that this was an absurd statement! But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was having difficulty refuting it.

My first inclination is that evidence is evidence. Very much unlike beauty, which IS subjective. The problem I had was... How we 'interpret' evidence may very well be subjective and in the eye of the beholder. But here's the difference...

Science uses evidence to form theories. Then science rigorously tests those theories and uses them to make predictions! It literally tries to falsify its own theory. Nothing is ever proven in science. However, it only takes a single false prediction to destroy a theory. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the stronger the theory becomes.

The problem with all this theistic mumbo-jumbo (if you'll excuse the expression), is that none of the theories or evidence which get espoused by theists can be subjected to scientific testing. So getting back to the ghost in my closet...

I could give you several bits of evidence I feel proves my ghost is there. I might tell you that I feel its presence in the very depths of my being. I could tell you how my clothes had been mysteriously re-arranged. I could then conclude: What else but my ghost could have done that? This evidence may be very real to me. But it would be utterly useless to you. To everyone else in the world, it could be any number of things from my being delusional, to someone breaking into my house and tampering with my closet. At the end of the day, my 'theory' is useless because it is untestable.

Does that make sense? You use evidence to formulate theories. You then subject those theories to rigorous testing and predictions. So while evidence may be in the eye of the beholder, theories are NOT! And if you can't test a theory it's useless for any practical purposes.

I'd like to ask you a question and mean no offense by this, but what line of work are you in and/or what is your level of education? Again, no offense in any way, but I'm finding myself having to explain some very rudimentary principles of math and science in these religious forums. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about these subjects, but many people here make very glaring mistakes when it comes to applying both logic and knowledge in these subjects, and I'm wondering why.

workerbee

May 4, 2008, 11:01 AM

Many Athiests have contributed to the world in a positive way. It is pure ego to think that non christians need to be christians to do good. In my opinion christians throughout history have caused much more pain and suffering than any other group.

workerbee

sGt HarDKorE

May 4, 2008, 11:30 AM

Athiests can go to heaven too says pope benedict..

Here is my proof, ZENIT - Commentary on Psalm 136(137) (http://www.zenit.org/article-14703?l=english)

workerbee

May 4, 2008, 11:59 AM

Seeing that Athiests don't believe in the silly supersition of heaven that means nothing. I am not sure popes can't go to heaven, many of them having fathered lots of illegitimate children and killed many innocents

workerbee

turtlegirl16

May 4, 2008, 12:16 PM

If you believe in him/her, he/she will love you. You don't have to be Christian to believe in God, you have to believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. If you know he is there then know he is watching you. He will always be with you.

ordinaryguy

May 4, 2008, 09:05 PM

I was about to respond to this, but to be honest... Wasn't sure how to counter it. I try to refrain from spewing and am hesitant to say something unless I'm reasonable sure that I'm right, or at least giving a sound answer. I'll admit, this question gave me pause. Is evidence in the eye of the beholder? My first reaction was that this was an absurd statement! But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was having difficulty refuting it.

My first inclination is that evidence is evidence. Very much unlike beauty, which IS subjective. The problem I had was... How we 'interpret' evidence may very well be subjective and in the eye of the beholder.
Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Science uses evidence to form theories. Then science rigorously tests those theories and uses them to make predictions! It literally tries to falsify its own theory. Nothing is ever proven in science. However, it only takes a single false prediction to destroy a theory. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the stronger the theory becomes.
I don't think we disagree in any fundamental way about how scientific methodology works, but I would put it a little bit differently.

The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all available evidence. More than that, it's theory that tells us where to look for evidence, and even what constitutes relevant evidence. Evidence consists of observations and measurements. Sometimes evidence is derived from designed and controlled experiments, other times that's not possible and evidence comes from observing and measuring phenomena and processes that occur naturally.

In either case, it's theory that tells us what is important to observe and measure, as well as how to understand and interpret our results. The accumulation of evidence that a theory can't adequately explain and harmonize with previously available evidence is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory.

It probably is a bit of an overstatement to say that evidence is subjective, but it isn't too much to say that people with radically different theoretical models in mind will not only interpret some evidence differently, they are also very likely to disagree about what constitutes legitimate evidence in the first place.

I think what happens so often when religionists and rationalists try to communicate is that each approaches the world and their own experience of it with theoretical frameworks that are so different that they can't even agree on what evidence is, never mind how to interpret it.

The problem with all this theistic mumbo-jumbo (if you'll excuse the expression), is that none of the theories or evidence which get espoused by theists can be subjected to scientific testing.
Actually, this isn't quite true. There is a fair body of research on the effects of intercessory prayer, and the results of these studies and the ensuing debate makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in this sort of thing. Google "scientific study intercessory prayer" if you're interested. The thing I take away from what I've read about it is how very hard it turns out to be to operationalize the concepts and fit them into the framework of scientific methodology. A major reason for these difficulties (as I see it) is the lack of a coherent theory of how the natural and supernatural realms might relate and interact.

Critiques of these studies (which have generally concluded that there is little or no measurable effect of intercessory prayer) come from both sides of the "belief spectrum". Scientific rationalists often say something along the lines of "This is a waste of time because the scientific method is only applicable to natural phenomena", while religionists often say something like "Well, no wonder, God doesn't work like that".

So while evidence may be in the eye of the beholder, theories are NOT!
I'd say that theories are what directs the eye of the beholder to the evidence.

And if you can't test a theory it's useless for any practical purposes.
I think this goes a bit too far, but maybe it depends on what your "practical purposes" are. I would say that an untestable theory is immune to improvement, but if its purpose is to give comfort and meaning to its adherents, and it works for that, maybe it's as good as it needs to be.

Do you think there are any questions that are meaningful and interesting that the scientific method is unable to address? Is there any job worth doing for which it is just not the right tool?

I'd like to ask you a question and mean no offense by this, but what line of work are you in and/or what is your level of education?
I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, and a MS and PhD in Economics, with an emphasis in statistics and econometrics. How about you?

Again, no offense in any way, but I'm finding myself having to explain some very rudimentary principles of math and science in these religious forums. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about these subjects, but many people here make very glaring mistakes when it comes to applying both logic and knowledge in these subjects, and I'm wondering why.
If you had stopped with your question, it would have been easy not to take offense. Now, it's harder, but I'm trying.

lobrobster

May 5, 2008, 06:50 AM

If you had stopped with your question, it would have been easy not to take offense. Now, it's harder, but I'm trying.

Really, I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I see such glaring errors in math and science here. One common example is that since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved, it must mean there is a 50/50 chance he exists! That's just ludicrous!

I'm willing to read (more) on prayer (let me know if you have any specific links). So far, everything I have read shows that it is pure bunk! The odds of a prayer being answered are exactly the same as the odds of that event occurring anyway. Coincidence? And there is ample evidence in prayers NOT being answered. Why in the history of mankind, has god never answered the prayers of an amputee? Even the most ardent believers wouldn't expect to re-grow a limb.

Yes, I think there are things that are immeasurable by science. Relative happiness, love, beauty, meaning, etc. But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are discussing the specific question of whether something exists. That CAN be a scientific question. A universe with (say, a Christian god for example), may be very different than a universe without one.

And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is. And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is. That's a big difference.

I think you and I agree on much more than our correspondence in this thread would let on. We agree that it matters on what 'type' of god we're talking about before we assign a probability. That's huge. I think we also agree on other things. But I'm a little less willing to bend the scientific method or how it is used. Should science be the most important thing in our lives? No. But it's how we understand our world. And at the end of the day, scientific theories must make accurate predictions. It's for this reason, I think gods and religions are useless when it comes to understanding how the universe works.

Sad Soul

May 5, 2008, 07:12 AM

Samaritans are believers.

I don't think anyone denied that "non-believers" could do good. Only that non-believers could do good in the sight of God.

There's a difference. If a believer does good in the sight of God, then his deed will be accounted towards his salvation:

Matthew 10 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man.

Matthew 16 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

But, without faith, it is impossible to please God:

Hebrews 11 6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

So, if a non-believer does good in the sight of men and in his own sight, he has received his reward. He has received the applause of men and the feeling of pride that comes along with doing something which pleases men and self. But this deed is not counted towards his eternal salvation since he does not believe in eternal salvation which only comes from the God whose existence he denies.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Something's off with the argument here. So you're saying that the non-believer that does good in his life, can't have eternal salvation from God because he doesn't believe in eternal salvation? So what happens to the non-believer who happens to be a good human being? He goes to hell then?

What?

So you're telling me that the way you interpret God is that even though someone is a good human being, because he doesn't believe in heaven or hell, God will definitely choose to give him hell? But the non-believer does not believe in hell either. How does this make sense when your argument is that despite being a good person "God can't give the non-believer heaven clearly because he does not believe in heaven".

talaniman

May 5, 2008, 07:36 AM

And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is. And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is. That's a big difference.

I can't answer for a Christian, because I'm not one. I feel no need to prove anything about the God that I understand, and believe to be real (to me). My only concern is to be wise in the way I conduct my own existence. I fall short sometimes, but try to stay on the path that I have personally chosen. Its not about math, logic, or knowledge of all things. Its about a personal relationship that shapes my humanity. The fact that I have woke up this morning is all the proof I need to carry on, No proof, no evidence (that I can explain) no logic, just belief. I require no more than that. Good journey, if you do.

talaniman

May 5, 2008, 07:41 AM

How does this make sense when your argument is that despite being a good person "God can't give the non-believer heaven clearly because he does not believe in heaven".
Despite everyone's opinion or belief, some questions will never be answered by humans. If you don't believe in God fine, if you do, then let HIM do the judging.

lobrobster

May 5, 2008, 08:00 AM

I can't answer for a Christian, because I'm not one. I feel no need to prove anything about the God that I understand, and believe to be real (to me). My only concern is to be wise in the way I conduct my own existence. I fall short sometimes, but try to stay on the path that I have personally chosen. Its not about math, logic, or knowledge of all things. Its about a personal relationship that shapes my humanity. The fact that I have woke up this morning is all the proof I need to carry on, No proof, no evidence (that I can explain) no logic, just belief. I require no more than that. Good journey, if you do.

If everyone thought the way you did, it would be a much better world. You are admitting there is no evidence or logic you can present that should compel anyone else to believe in the god you know deep down exists. Rather, it is a personal experience or feeling that YOU feel guides your faith in a supreme being. Nothing wrong with that. I think you're wrong :) , but could easily get along with you.

Sad Soul

May 5, 2008, 08:06 AM

But those without God don't even have hope, not for the life after this.
And of course as many say here morals and ethics are not just a Chrsitian issue but a issue of society, And there is no need to argue and most certainly no need to justify our beliefs. Those wanting a justification merely wish to not accept, which is thiere right, but when they wish to challenge those that beleive they wish to merely try and take away that hope and beleif form others.

I have always challenged that those that do this, are more than pure athiest, but are really those working for the other side, If one attacks one beleif, they have to have a belief that is against it, not merely a beleif of nothing.

Sorry, but are you saying that those women who were killed during the witch burnings, for questioning the logic that was used through the bible to kill them dude to their moles or sour milk, was evil? Are you saying those women should have shut their traps, because otherwise it means they were working for the other side? Goodness..

What about those blacks that were enslaved, and the logic of some people who called themselves Christians, being used to to justify this lunacy?

I could make a verrrrrry long list as to why it is verrrrrry healthy to question the ideologies that some label as Christianity (or any other religion, or atheism). I believe that if you are truly a Christian, Fr_Chuck, and not an evil-doer in disguise, then you shouldn't fear people trying to have a rational debate about religious ideologies by automatically claiming they are working for the other side. What are you afraid of? I mean, people who truly believe in the power of what they're saying, don't mind a healthy argument or discussion. That is, they don't need to use propaganda or to silence others...

Do you remember who the anti-Christ is supposed to be, Fr_Chuck? Something like Christ on earth.

So, I'm sorry, but according to Christianity, it's not those that would love discourse and enjoy getting human beings closer to the truth (God) that is working for the other side, but it can be people who pretend they are Christian (good) when they are truly NOT, that is working for the other side. Come on, you know this.

Me thinks that people who are not afraid to speak about God, and hence choose to have debates to try and get closer to truth (him), are not the ones you should fear are working for the other side. Those who prefer to silence others, and cast them as evil-doers if they try to question ideologies, seem to actually have something to hide themselves. I mean, I guess there is a lot to hide about the argument as to why we should have burned women to death, slaved blacks, and house-arrested Galileo. True Christians, in my opinion Fr_Chuck, and true good-doers, are the ones who questioned all these things.

Oh, and I do believe in God, for the record. But the God that I believe in, I think wants me to question all those things?

ordinaryguy

May 5, 2008, 12:13 PM

Really, I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I see such glaring errors in math and science here.
Surely you can see why I'm having a bit of a struggle. It's hard to avoid the implication that you think I'm one of those who makes these "glaring errors" that you see here. It's hard to see how my level of education and training could be related in any way to errors made by others.

Will you be offended if I ask you (again) about your education and training?

One common example is that since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved, it must mean there is a 50/50 chance he exists! That's just ludicrous! Yes, of course it is, but what has it got to do with anything I've said?

I'm willing to read (more) on prayer (let me know if you have any specific links).
The "mother of all prayer studies" is Benson, et. al. Am Heart J. 2006 Apr;151(4):934-42. Here's the abstract: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory P...[Am Heart J. 2006] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567)
Here's a couple of critiques, the first from a secularist, the other two from a religionist who is also a scientist.
About Intercessory Prayer: The Scientific Study of Miracles (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1924985)
ON ASSESSING PRAYER, FAITH, AND HEALTH (http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=54)
Arm-Twisting with the Almighty (http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=133)

Yes, I think there are things that are immeasurable by science. Relative happiness, love, beauty, meaning, etc. But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are discussing the specific question of whether something exists.
Well, see, this is the heart of the matter. The theory of God that you bring to the subject allows a methodological distinction to be made between all those ineffables and the existence (or not) of God. But in the theory of God that the devout believer brings to the subject, the nature and existence of God are intimately and irrevocably connected to all these things.

That CAN be a scientific question. A universe with (say, a Christian god for example), may be very different than a universe without one.
And the heart of the "experimental design" problem is to define specifically and precisely how a universe with that particular god (attributes specified in detail) would differ in an observable, measurable and repeatable way from a universe without such a god. Unless you and the religionists can agree about those matters of detail, you won't be able to design an experiment that will be recognized by both as providing legitimate and convincing results.

And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is.
I'm with you up to this point.

And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is.As long as they aren't trying to change your mind, they aren't obliged to provide you anything.

I think you and I agree on much more than our correspondence in this thread would let on. We agree that it matters on what 'type' of god we're talking about before we assign a probability. That's huge. I think we also agree on other things.
I've known it all along.

But I'm a little less willing to bend the scientific method or how it is used.
You surely misunderstand what I'm saying here if you think I'm willing to bend the scientific method at all. My concern is that it while it is a very powerful and useful tool, there are some fairly strict limits on its applicability, and it's a fool's errand to try to bend and stretch it to address questions that are far outside its scope, such as the effects of intercessory prayer, or the existence of god, or the meaning of life.

Should science be the most important thing in our lives? No. But it's how we understand our world.
If it's the only tool in your box, you will learn a lot about the outer world, but very little about the inner one.

And at the end of the day, scientific theories must make accurate predictions.
Scientific theories are mostly about providing coherent explanations, hardly at all about making predictions, except in the limited sense of what results to expect from certain controlled experiments or from specific observations or precise measurements of phenomena. But the purpose of such experiments and observations is to arrive at a more satisfying and comprehensive explanation.

It's for this reason, I think gods and religions are useless when it comes to understanding how the universe works.I wholeheartedly agree that the scientific method is the preferred tool for that job. For the job of finding meaning and purpose and joy in our individual lives, some form of spiritual endeavor may be a better choice.