Why do the God-haters persist?

[holston]

I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.

They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil.

The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.

Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.

Yes I am alleging that God is all powerful.

That is not to say that God has not given man or the devil a power of his own.
He couldn't exactly do that and at the same time prevent him from using it now could he?

1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in
ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can
create worlds must be omnipotent.
[1913 Webster]

God's will and pleasure and his omnipotent power.
--Sir T. More.
[1913 Webster]

2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as,
omnipotent love. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

The Omnipotent, The Almighty; God. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

I stand by what I said.

What you said was incorrect. Omnipotent is not all knowing. Omniscience is all knowing.

Since you are sticking by God being omnipotent then he created the devil with the power for evil. Ergo God created evil and since he is omniscient he knew that evil would be done so my statement regarding God's premeditation and collusion when it comes to evil is 100% correct.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.

They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.

You can make demands all you like.
Threads like this don't usually reward the essayist.
You can fret about it if you like, but it works that way no matter what you write.
It isn't personal.
You have just chosen the wrong venue.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I still haven't seen any evidence that anyone hates "god".

Its certain of his followers who give him a bad name.

 

[thanatos144]

fear is why Atheists hate God....Fear that there is a God and he will judge their sinful lives.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.

They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.

No offense, but your posts are wordy. Perhaps you could keep it more concise.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Holston:
I see two different factors mixed together here

A. one factor is forgiveness, if people cannot imagine forgiving the wrongs in the world, if they hold on to unforgiveness of problems of the past, they project the same onto the present and future, and do not understand the process of higher forgiveness to let this go.
so this separates us from understanding God's truth, love and higher will: unforgiveness

B. differences where people do not see the world the same way by our nature or design

with other people, it is not their fault if their psychology and perception is different. God created both the believers under scriptural laws and secular gentiles under natural laws.

similar to how people have different vocal or hearing ranges,
some people cannot sing above or below certain pitch levels, it is not within their nature.

if you consider the gentiles under natural laws and the believers under sacred laws
to be the treble lines and bass lines within the same symphony, they are written that way.

I find some people do not see the world in terms of a "personified God or creator"
but see the world and the laws as "impersonal" as "one with the universe" or
"self-existent" (as the laws of science or nature are universal and do not require believing in a creator or starting point to believe in and follow these laws).

You are right, that SOME people whose perceptions or biases are limited due to unforgiveness can be changed, so that is factor A. Christian believers are equally affected by this Forgiveness factor, and can grow to understand God more, the more we forgive.

For factor B, some people are just nontheistic in how they see the world.
Some people are more objective in math and science and do not process information personally or emotionally or in relation to others. Some people are just different,
though the same universal laws apply to all of us, they can be expressed differently.

Note: I still believe Jesus is a universal concept, but this same concept of "divine or universal justice" is expressed and understood differently for nontheists than for Christians.
the factor that makes the key difference is "forgiveness" in whether people seek "restorative justice" which Christ Jesus represents and fulfills, or whether people act out of retribution rejection or "retributive justice" which is antichrist and goes against Christ.

Again, the Forgiveness Factor (A) is the real issue to address. How we express forgiveness in terms of "restorative justice" can vary but it is still the spirit of Christ Jesus.

sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..

So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.

And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.

This last concept escapes their grasp.
They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.

They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.

This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far.

The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see.

A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are.

I can't say which case applies to these people here.

But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did.

I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil.
In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do.
For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him.

For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so? Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil?


I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess.

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men.

Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am able to believe or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.

The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?

An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since that is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their conviction that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be.

The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible.


The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things which he desires most.

And what should a person who is "good", desire most?

A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.

A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence.

A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence.

Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good.

So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles.

Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell.

A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine.

I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in that!

But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?

The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell.

Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all.

I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity.

Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes.

If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
IF such a THING as MERCY were to exist.

But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers".

If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether.

To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics.

The most ardent evolutionist can only imagine how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest.

I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses.

God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas.

People are going to suffer and die in any case.
That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally.

In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence.

If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can wish for is total annihilation. (If only it were that simple. )

No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science" not withstanding.

 

[holston]

Hi Holston:
I see two different factors mixed together here

A. one factor is forgiveness, if people cannot imagine forgiving the wrongs in the world, if they hold on to unforgiveness of problems of the past, they project the same onto the present and future, and do not understand the process of higher forgiveness to let this go.
so this separates us from understanding God's truth, love and higher will: unforgiveness

B. differences where people do not see the world the same way by our nature or design

with other people, it is not their fault if their psychology and perception is different. God created both the believers under scriptural laws and secular gentiles under natural laws.

similar to how people have different vocal or hearing ranges,
some people cannot sing above or below certain pitch levels, it is not within their nature.

if you consider the gentiles under natural laws and the believers under sacred laws
to be the treble lines and bass lines within the same symphony, they are written that way.

I find some people do not see the world in terms of a "personified God or creator"
but see the world and the laws as "impersonal" as "one with the universe" or
"self-existent" (as the laws of science or nature are universal and do not require believing in a creator or starting point to believe in and follow these laws).

You are right, that SOME people whose perceptions or biases are limited due to unforgiveness can be changed, so that is factor A. Christian believers are equally affected by this Forgiveness factor, and can grow to understand God more, the more we forgive.

For factor B, some people are just nontheistic in how they see the world.
Some people are more objective in math and science and do not process information personally or emotionally or in relation to others. Some people are just different,
though the same universal laws apply to all of us, they can be expressed differently.

Note: I still believe Jesus is a universal concept, but this same concept of "divine or universal justice" is expressed and understood differently for nontheists than for Christians.
the factor that makes the key difference is "forgiveness" in whether people seek "restorative justice" which Christ Jesus represents and fulfills, or whether people act out of retribution rejection or "retributive justice" which is antichrist and goes against Christ.

Again, the Forgiveness Factor (A) is the real issue to address. How we express forgiveness in terms of "restorative justice" can vary but it is still the spirit of Christ Jesus.

If you check the above posts you will see that some of them contain the criticism that I am "too wordy" and guilty of "writing essays".
I won't deny either charge.

I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space.
This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation.
Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid.

Therefore it isn't hard for the naysayers to find occasions to take exceptions. If they fail there then they will go for lesser infractions, "too boring", incorrect grammar, punctuation, etc etc. One gets the impression that they are less interested in the subject matter than they are fussing about it.


If I have neglected to include "forgiveness" in my very truncated enumeration of God's attributes, it wasn't due to negligence as much as it was the constraints of time in covering every possible base in one smooth sweep.

Some of what you are saying is merely a reiteration of what I have already said myself numerous times. That is, that a truly atheistic person has a problem with belief which is rooted in honest doubt. I was careful to make the distinction between this sort of person and others who are simply contrary for no better reason.

I wouldn't judge the two the same way and I'm sure that God knows how to account for such "factors".


I see ALL people, call them Jews or gentiles as you will, as being under the same law and under the same obligations under God.

The same plan of salvation applies to all of them.

I do not see Jesus as a "universal concept" but rather as an actual historical person just like any other with the exception of the claims which he made of himself and which others attested to.


Forgiveness is a thing which a person must not only be willing to dispense himself in order to receive it, but he must also seek it. That involves repenting of whatever deeds it is he is seeking forgiveness for , ie ceases to do them, and asking forgiveness of the person or persons whom he has offended.

Ultimately only God can truly forgive.
Nevertheless God expects us to imitate him in doing likewise among ourselves.

I seriously doubt if a person is ever forgiven of any sin which he never ceases to do, or has ever felt the need to ask forgiveness for.

I can say that I forgive someone of this or that, but that does not necessarily mean that God has if that person has never sought forgiveness and repented of his sin before God himself.

In that case my "forgiveness" has not exonerated that person of anything.

It's only in the case in which a person has repented and received forgiveness of God that God requires me to forgive him as well. Otherwise I do not have the power to bestow a pardon on that person even if I wanted to.

 

[BreezeWood]

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...

* (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.

.

In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire.

that in itself would not be evil - what is evil is to claim for a truth being from God that does not exist - your "Book", as though there is in it the answer for the Remission to the Everlasting.

it is incomplete.

.

 

[GISMYS]

* (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.

.

In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire.

that in itself would not be evil - what is evil is to claim for a truth being from God that does not exist - your "Book", as though there is in it the answer for the Remission to the Everlasting.

it is incomplete.

.

only a total fool trys to debate about what you know nothing. READ THE WORD OF GOD FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF!!!

 

[orogenicman]

I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space.
This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation.
Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid.

Actually, the point is that we have blogs for more in-depth coverage of an issue. I really don't believe that such lengthy posts are productive on the regular forums, and are actually a bit annoying. Perhaps you could give a more concise response, and then link to a blog that you can create in the blog section for those who want a more detailed analysis. And for the record, I think that posting lengthy discussions of God's attributes in a thread about "Why do the God-haters persist?" is inappropriate, and off topic. But that's just my own opinion.

 

[Boss]

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good? Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good? Good and evil are subjective perception. There is no universal understanding. When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good. When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.

 

[holston]

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good? Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good? Good and evil are subjective perception. There is no universal understanding. When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good. When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.

If I may venture a guess of my own, I would say that before man was introduced to the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, he had no appreciation of the difference because he was acquainted with only good.

After his "eyes were opened" he was exposed to a knowledge of something that he as a mere mortal was unequipped to handle.

God knew the difference alright. That's why he warned Adam and Eve not to discover it.

Satan, being a fallen angle himself, also knew about it. And being a malignant sort of fellow he wished to bring the same curse on man which he had suffered himself through his own rebellion in order to harm both man and God. Is THIS "the light" which Lucifer showed to us?

There are SOME things in this life which may be considered "relative". This does not mean that ALL things are.

A person can conceptualize about a thing any number of ways without altering the essence of the thing which he is thinking.

Good and evil are not nearly so relative as some people like to pretend. I suppose that many of them do so for ulterior reasons which are not always apparent, such as to justify some deed which they wish to do which is not normally considered acceptable.

I would go so far as to agree that all men are right in their own eyes. That does not make them right in the eyes of God. Whether a person is genuinely ignorant of some wrong is may be known only to God who is able to see the inner most workings of a man's "heart".
A man may even be capable of deceiving himself at times and concealing his own true motives from himself. But God knows all about his hidden agendas.

What criminal does a thing without having created some justification for his actions in his own mind?

Everyone may believe themselves to be right. But the scriptures say that it is not in a man to direct his own steps. This is why it is necessary that we have the instructions contained in the Bible and why it is imperative for the welfare of ones own soul that he follow them as earnestly as he is able and never give them up.

The Muslims say that "God is one". The Jews say that "God is one". And contrary to the mumbo jumbo that Jews and others like to make about "the trinity", Christians also believe that God is one.

That being the case, none of these different persuasions can argue that the judgements of God emanate from more than one source. Therefore no one can argue that the moral good has any roots in that which is evil.

People can appeal to situation ethics in an effort to justify some wrong or make an argument to that effect. But the moral essence of right and wrong is not subject to the caprice of man whether he can honestly plead ignorance or not.
Adam and Eve were ignorant right up until the time they disobeyed. Then their former ignorance was no excuse for their disobedience. Nor did it serve to shield them from the natural consequences of that action.


We can imagine a great many scenarios where one might see "moral relativity" in them. But I would submit that the underlying foundation for the moral good is not so variable as many try to argue.

For example, we might consider the case where a man steals bread for his starving family a case of theft. We might judge him less harshly for this theft than we might a man who would knowingly steal another man's horse leaving him alone in the desert on foot to die when to do so was unnecessary.

In both cases we apply the word "theft". But we can easily distinguish the quality between the two cases and render a punishment that is more commensurate with the crime. Are we so daft that we would hang a man in both cases for the sake of preserving the rigid construction of a definition in our minds?

Our ineptitude in processing the limitations of language and the problems inherent in communication can serve as a spring board for those who wish to use them as a means of prevarication and dissembling. But none of those deviations alter the moral spirit of justice any more than perfect justice can destroy the spirit of mercy.

A person may encounter dilemmas of a moral or ethical nature which leave him genuinely perplexed. But I would attribute that more to his own lack of knowledge and wisdom than to some paradox of good and evil inherent in nature.

The inability of a man to say with all honesty that he always knows absolutely how to rightly judge each and every situation he encounters only underscores the fact that man himself is finite and incapable of rendering perfect justice. This is no reason to assume that God is equally incapable.

If one can conceive of a God who is NOT lacking in either wisdom and knowledge so that he IS capable of rendering perfect judgement, then we should all take extra care before we cast judgements which are not clearly spelled out for us by the word of God himself. Even then we ought to do so cautiously and perhaps with a little fear where we are left with no other choice.

A Civil Judge is one job I would not want. I want to judge a man's soul even less. But I am not only permitted, it is required of me to judge whether a man's deeds are in accordance with what I know to be scriptural.

Christ went to people as a physician because he was ABLE to. I on the other hand must determine for my own safety whose company I choose to keep.

Can you see the moral difference in the two types of "judgement" involved here, even though we are speaking of God's judgement on one hand and God's admonitions to man on the other?

You don't have to buy into the situation ethics and moral relativism of Secular Humanism to exercise an appropriate moral judgement. You only need a just set of scales and measurements and to follow the rules in applying them.

 

[holston]

I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space.
This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation.
Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid.

Actually, the point is that we have blogs for more in-depth coverage of an issue. I really don't believe that such lengthy posts are productive on the regular forums, and are actually a bit annoying. Perhaps you could give a more concise response, and then link to a blog that you can create in the blog section for those who want a more detailed analysis. And for the record, I think that posting lengthy discussions of God's attributes in a thread about "Why do the God-haters persist?" is inappropriate, and off topic. But that's just my own opinion.

I will take your criticism under serious consideration as it was intended as good advice.

I will do my best to improve upon my method of expression. This will probably take some time and additional effort on my part.

In the meantime if what I write bothers you, just don't read it.

 

[holston]

Didn't you cum yet?

Spoken like BruceAlmighty.

Below the director of "BruceAlmighty" preaches the gospel to a rapt audience.

I can't say what I would do, but it's obvious how BruceAlmighty would spend his time.

 

[Marie888]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Romans 1:20-32
King James Version (KJV)

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

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.




.

 

[orogenicman]

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

What, like wait in traffic jams, and such?

 

[thebrucebeat]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Romans 1:20-32
King James Version (KJV)

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

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.




.

You quoted 12 verses from a 2500 page book collection to show your favorite term was used once?
Well, compelling!
What do you think you have proved with your post?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Didn't you cum yet?

Spoken like BruceAlmighty.

Below the director of "BruceAlmighty" preaches the gospel to a rapt audience.

I can't say what I would do, but it's obvious how BruceAlmighty would spend his time.

Doesn't take much to leave the "holier than thou" high road, does it?
Welcome to the real forum!
LOL!

 

[MrMax]

Boss hates god for making him only THINK that he's smarter than everyone else.