Evidence for God from Science

Bav, I see the parts that PaulS is saying about after death. But I certainly don't see him saying salvation apart from Christ, like you think he's saying.

Bav, I'll leave you with this article from Rich Deem, that talks about the very thing PaulSacramento brought up.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

Paul, it seems Rich Deem understands what you're saying.

RickD wrote:FL wrote:Everyone else rejects God on their own and cannot blame someone else.
Then, do you believe that all those who have never heard the gospel, fall into the category of "rejecting God"?

I already answered that! Gosh....yer juss like that Ivellious kid, not readin wut I rite an all, then complainin bout Chrissianity been unfair to Ghandi!

Hello?

Did Rahab the prostitute hear the gospel? No!
Did Ruth the Moabitess hear the gospel? No!
Did Naaman the Syrian hear the gospel? No!
Did the Queen of Sheba hear the gospel? No!
Did the Ethiopian enuch hear the gospel? No!

Have the above rejected God? Wanna bet all the above are in Heaven with Christ?

Hello? Is anybody home? Please turn your brain ON.

FL

Good, FL. Then I think we're on the same page.

Hello? Is anybody home? Please turn your brain ON.

Goodness gracious! You sound like my wife.

RickD wrote:Good, FL. Then I think we're on the same page.

Yes, we are both on page 7.

And - by the way - if Ghandi rejected Christ - and I'm pretty sure he did - he's somewhere very hot.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:Good, FL. Then I think we're on the same page.

Yes, we are both on page 7.

And - by the way - if Ghandi rejected Christ - and I'm pretty sure he did - he's somewhere very hot.

FL

First off, I have no idea if Gandhi rejected Christ. But you, I, and PaulSacramento, all agree that anyone who rejects Christ, will be without God for eternity. The disagreement is about those who haven't rejected Christ, because they haven't heard of Christ. Is the cold weather up there, slowing your brain down?

RickD wrote:First off, I have no idea if Gandhi rejected Christ.

Later on in life, Ghandi became a Jain. Jainism is an extreme form of Hinduism where the faithful walk around almost nude wearing a facemask and carrying a broom. The mask is to not inhale insects, thereby killing them, and the broom is to sweep in front of the walker's feet in order to not crush insects or small animals inadvertently. The idea is to not interfere with the incarnation of the insect/animal and to not incur negative karma on the killer's part.

So, while the Christian must admit the possibility of Ghandi or Hitler accepting Christ before their demise, the likelyhood of salvation for these two is...ah...open to debate. (I'm being polite!)

RickD wrote:The disagreement is about those who haven't rejected Christ, because they haven't heard of Christ.

This has already been answered. There are examples of such people in the Bible, and I've even named a few. Also, babies, the feeble-minded, children, and others are not condemned if they die. I even answered Ivellious' objections about the salvation of modern-day heathen but someone with a hatred of God will not want to hear the truth and will prefer to ignore it.

As for PaulSacramento, I understand he's a former Jehovah's Witness and Canadian. Poor man, such rotten luck. Some people really get off to a bad start in life; but God delights in using weak vessels.

RickD wrote:Is the cold weather up there, slowing your brain down?

There is heating in my igloo!

FL

Also, babies, the feeble-minded, children, and others are not condemned if they die.

So I am saved!

RickD wrote:

Also, babies, the feeble-minded, children, and others are not condemned if they die.

So I am saved!

WOW.......I just understood that I AM SAVED as well! Praise God for His boudless mercy!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:

Also, babies, the feeble-minded, children, and others are not condemned if they die.

So I am saved!

WOW.......I just understood that I AM SAVED as well! Praise God for His boudless mercy!

FL

Not just His boudless mercy, but also His boundless mercy. Praise God!!!

RickD wrote:Not just His boudless mercy, but also His boundless mercy. Praise God!!!

I'm shore glad FriedIntellect isn't around

FL

I tend to ask other to view my posts when it seems that someone is not understanding what I am saying, I am afterall far too human and as imperfect as everyone else.
So I asked a few friends to look over this thread and tell me what they thought.
The atheist saw what makes him NOT want to "know" God, ie: what Bav was saying.
The Jewish friend of mine saw what I said and understood, though He disagreed when I said that Salvation is only in Christ ( typical ).
Two of my agnostic friends both said the samething: You guys are your own worse enemies !
My Theology teacher, who specializes in ANE text and the OT ( not my forte by a long shot) reminded me that while good works were to corner stone of the OT Law, salvation was still not assured simply because one did "good works".
BUT he also said that this debate has been going on for centuries with BOTH parties being correct in terms of scriptural interpretation and reminded me that NONE of this is new and to NOT let myself get over worked about something that "greater minds" had argued and NOT agreed on.

He does have away of putting things in perspective.

I appreciate that some understood what I was saying and I apologize to those I have offended.

Two of my agnostic friends both said the samething: You guys are your own worse enemies !

Paul, I don't see it this way. I have no problem disagreeing with brothers and sisters in Christ. It helps us grow, keeps us from becoming too dogmatic about non-essential things of our faith, and it shows others that we're not robots, and can disagree with one another, and still be brothers and sisters in Christ. Don't we all have some heated arguments with our spouses? Doesn't it help us grow?

Paul, if anything, your perspective showed me that you aren't dogmatic about something that many people have disagreed on before. If we are dogmatic, and closed minded, then that becomes a problem(take Ken Ham as just one example).

Others will disagree with me, but I didn't see you preaching another gospel. I just saw you trying to reconcile your belief about Gods nature, with something that scripture doesn't speak specifically about. I have thought about the same thing myself. And while I still don't know the answer, I know God is not only just, but He is also not wanting any to perish.

RickD wrote:

Two of my agnostic friends both said the samething: You guys are your own worse enemies !

Paul, I don't see it this way. I have no problem disagreeing with brothers and sisters in Christ. It helps us grow, keeps us from becoming too dogmatic about non-essential things of our faith, and it shows others that we're not robots, and can disagree with one another, and still be brothers and sisters in Christ. Don't we all have some heated arguments with our spouses? Doesn't it help us grow?

Paul, if anything, your perspective showed me that you aren't dogmatic about something that many people have disagreed on before. If we are dogmatic, and closed minded, then that becomes a problem(take Ken Ham as just one example).

Others will disagree with me, but I didn't see you preaching another gospel. I just saw you trying to reconcile your belief about Gods nature, with something that scripture doesn't speak specifically about. I have thought about the same thing myself. And while I still don't know the answer, I know God is not only just, but He is also not wanting any to perish.

I can honestly tell you Rick that when it comes to my public teaching of the gospel, I am VERY orthodox and leave the "controversial" stuff to what I make clear is my OWN private opinion and I make note that there is MORE than ONE interpretation and always advocate the listener to find out for themselves.
Lets not forget how much Paul and James and Peter "debated' things too
BUT always we are still ALL brothers under our lord and saviour Jesus Christ, THE ONE and ONLY path to salvation.

I'll go out on a limb and say I'm wrong about how I interpreted what PaulSacramento ( PS ) is saying/feeling.

Here's my perspective:

It SEEMS that PS is trying to make the "atheist" ( or nonbeliever ) have a sense that God is so loving that even after death He affords some to "choose" Him and receive the gift of life. I understand the thinking and humanness in giving that second chance or wanting to give it. I get it. I'm sympathetic to those that MAY not hear of the gospel ( I agree, one doesn't nessarily need to know Jesus' name or that He is Christ... ) but at the same time according to the bible, it is impossible for a person that is a good person and acknowledges a higher power and fails to see the Creator, but instead in ignorance worships the sun or mother nature ( for instance ) for lack of knowledge is still guilty of sin and cannot be reconciled to God without knowing the God that can do so. If few lashes are given to those that don't know, the point is that lashes are given nonetheless. Maybe these people will not be resurrected to then unjustly be put into hell ( of which in my interpretation is not a perpetual punishment but a place of final death or anhiliation ) again having already paid the penalty of sin...not "needing" to be judged by the God they did not know nor understand.

However to "hope" for their salvation apart from faith, and therefore apart from Christ, is to ME a slap to the face of God in that His plan of salvation, a Legal and Just plan set forth in Love, would THEN be made unnecessary and barbaric in that it was never needed in the first place. If ONE PERSON is able to receive the gift of life APART FROM WHAT IS SET BEFORE US IN SCRIPTURE, then it makes the whole thing an idiotic game God has played on those that believe His Word.

I have the same "hope" to some degree...that good people will/could be saved. I have many 'atheist' friends that to me seem would make better Christians than some Christians I know, yet do not believe. I HOPE something is better for them, however I cannot logically come to that hope in what has been laid out for us through God's Word...and His past actions.

To me, this notion of rationalizing the Justice of God to something so the created unbeliever can then say, "Oh...that seems fair to me." is so silly. How can we fathom God's Justice and at the same time fathom God's Love? How can a loving God whom cannot...CANNOT...simply forgive sin, reconcile that which He loves but dead in sin? Who but a loving God sacrifices self in order that ALL MAY have life? It's an amazing act that cannot be put into words and explained without awe. To trivialize this and hope for something apart from that love....???

If this "HOPE" turns out to be true, then the whole idea of God dying as the only way to save humanity was/is a lie and God. a liar.

Debate this all you want, but as for me and my house...
.
.