Dan56

There's really not a burden to convince anyone of anything. The gospel is what it is, and every individual chooses to believe it or not. A person who believes in God can no more convince a non-believer to believe than a nonbeliever can convince a believer that there is no God. The existence or nonexistence of God can not be definitively established in the absence of direct tangible evidence, so no sales pitch is persuasive. A person who believes doesn't feel burdened to convince others, but rather an obligation to share what they believe, especially when they're questioned about it. We all choose to believe something, even if its nothing.

I guess that's why I'm not a pacifist, I don't believe that absorbing the anger of others protects anyone, but instead, propagates violence.. Let a bully have his way, and your just inspiring his further abuse of others. Avoiding conflict whenever possible, and walking away from an altercation, I agree with.

I can respect a pacifist who doesn't want to fight because they deplore violence. But I never met a pacifist who enjoyed laying in a ditch with 2 black eyes and a bloody lip.. Its at that point, that a pacifist is no longer avoiding violence, but have willingly become a victim. Being beat to a pulp is not controlling anything imo.

Questions aren't so difficult, its the answers that are tough.

That's true... When you live in a country where the majority are Christian, it wouldn't be wise to advertise that you are not. No.... You seemed irritated when I wrote; "Not many Agnostic charities around", by responding with; "Then you crack wise about Agnostic charities".. So I simply expounded upon my point, which was that there aren't many Agnostic charities around.. If you have no data to the contrary, then there's no provocation.. I've personally never seen an agnostic charity, but as mererdog suggest, perhaps they function under the guise of a Christian banner, otherwise no one would contribute?

Sorry if that offends you, but its a fact; "Atheist giving often centers on propaganda towards their anti-religion agenda or for “activist” causes, McFarland noted. He cited the American Atheists’ well-funded billboard campaign targeting Christmas that has been running the past few years. Many atheists give money toward this cause. McFarland also stressed that “religious givers are still by far the largest givers to benevolent causes. At the root of this is belief in God – which influences how we view our fellow humans, and how we think in terms of our own stewardship and accountability.” http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-up-charity-giving-good-without-god-65929/ " The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults." http://thaumaturgical.com/a-big-list-of-atheist-charities/ Depends on the percentages? There are a lot more Christians, so there would logically be more faith based businesses. Making money is not traditionally inspired for theological reasons, however 'hard work' is an inspired motivation, and laziness is frowned upon. Perhaps this incentivizes people of faith to be more ambitious?

Yes, I meant no insult.. I meant normal in the sense of majority, if most people believe the same thing, then its considered the norm. Whereas, a minority who believes differently, would not be like normal people.. Poor wording on my part.. And I understand that Agnostics can have compassion, but its not part of a fundamental belief, so I don't think the motivation is as strong in the absence of an official charitable creed that teaches and promotes compassion. Not many Agnostic charities around.

I disagree.. I wasn't saying that you have no compassion, just that a person is not as incentivized to be good when there's no punishment for being bad. My motivation is not to burn in hell, but nonbelievers don't worry about that. The reason you don't steal a car is because there's a law against it and you'll go to jail (punishment). That's normal.. I meant that the majority of people believe in something beyond the here and now, so they have more of an incentive to do good. Agnosticism assigns no penalty for being incompassionate, so the downside presents no long term repercussions for them.

If a believer thinks there are repercussions for doing horrible deeds, then it motivates them the same way that going to prison motivates you to keep the law. A nonbeliever doesn't fear God's wrath, so self-interest to do good isn't a motivating factor. I think the difference is "motivation"... There's no downside to an Agnostic for having no compassion.. They aren't inspired to be compassionate like normal people are because there's nothing in it for them.

I personally think the country was due for a change in direction. My parents were always blue dog democrats, my Dad always felt like the Democrats were for the working man. But he voted for Trump because he now thinks that the progressive left wing of the party took control and only panders to special interest. I personally feel that illegal immigration is out of control, and no regular politician was going to fix it. The changes I voted for were to address the consistent downward slide of the shrinking middle class. Trump wasn't my first choice, but Hillary had no answers. The politically correct environment drives me crazy, and I like the fact that Trump seems to have a much better perspective on our economic problems. Whether he'll actually fix anything remains to be seen, but its good that he doesn't seem to be influenced by anything in the swamp. I'm a Christian, a republican, I hate Islam, government, and debt.. I believe the best way to help the impoverished is to create jobs, the best way to stop crime is to lock up criminals, and the best way to deal with other nations is to not prioritize their interest above our own.

There have been ongoing protest in the streets ever since Trump got elected.. My point was simply that some people can't accept anything that violates their own ideology, be it political or religious. Some of them refuse to adapt to reality because it doesn't match their own preconceived notion of how things should be, like the girl who debated cuchulain, when she threw a tissy fit and walked away.

That girl who ran away mad from your debate is reminiscent of the response we're seeing from those who can't accept the results of the recent election. Its not a matter of speaking any truth, its just an inability to accept reality. Remember when kids played soccer, football, softball, and we never kept score in those games? No sportsmanship was necessary because no disappointment was allowed, everyone got what they wanted, there were no losers, everyone was a winner. Those same kids, now adults, are protesting the results of an election they cannot accept.. The election result was not what they wanted, the result violated what they believed, so they reject the truth. Telling them that Trump is president only generates anger and resistance. Truth be damned when its an inconvenience to our preconceived notions, e.g; I don't think its right, therefore it can't can't be so..

My point was that people are ignorant of their past, in the sense that they don't know how they got here (originated). They are ignorant of the present in the sense that they don't know why they are here (purpose). And they are ignorant of the future because they don't know what happens after they're gone (death). So you were right, we have no real knowledge of the past, present, or future, and our ignorance limits us to a conundrum of confusion. My comment; "And that's why people turn to religion" was simply the suggestion that religion (a belief in God), answers those questions. Because as you stated; "At no point in the apparent continuum does my ignorance change anything". Exactly, which is why people often turn to and rely on religion to answer the assignment of time, it gives the allocation of past, present, and future, a purpose and meaning.

Exactly.... And that why people turn to religion.

Being a slave to those who would dominate or abuse you is not freedom. When you raise a white flag to your enemies, your personal sovereignty goes out the window. When you willingly becoming a victim, your no longer a decision-maker, your choices are eliminated and your forced to yield to those who tell you how its going to be. There may be certain situations when its better to walk away and endure some hardship, but generally, yielding to bullies just encourages more abuse and dominance. I agree to the extent that an out-of-control temper is a character flaw. But submission to those who would cause you harm is also a character flaw.. If its masochism verses temper, I prefer temper.. I don't think there's any honor in pacifism, pacifist often come off to me as people who just don't care, they just don't find anything is worth fighting for. Freedom and liberty are not the fruits of pacifism.

But your pacifism doesn't prevent you from being anyone's victim... I'm a pacifist in the sense that I don't look to create enemies, but my pacifism ends when their fist meets my face, then my temper takes over (self-defense).

I do believe that, but I also believe we were created with 'free will', and what was originally perfect became corrupted. Again, 'free will'... God did not create us sinners, so blaming Him is futile. Sinning was our choice, God did not create sin, it emanates from within us. I simply believe and purport what the bible teaches.. But your correct, no argument can change what's written.

Jesus said; "There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18).. Since everyone has sinned and broken the law, your conclusion that God would send a good man to hell is impossible. By your analysis, you think there are good people, but God says; "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

Never said the affair was hidden. Your missing the bigger point of my analogy, which is that doing good things doesn't please God when you don't believe in God. If your not acting in His name, your only doing good for yourself or someone else, not God. And despite good deeds, a nonbeliever receives no forgiveness for their bad deeds. So whatever a nonbeliever classifies as a good deed becomes a moot point, hell is still the end point.

Because he went on to divorce his wife, marry his mistress, and they lived happily ever after

Good deeds by who's standards? I believe that only God is good. Yes, I believe Gandhi will perish because he had no Savior. As you know, I believe the sacrifice of Christ was necessary, not needless. My God is very tolerant and does not hate women. You paint a bleak picture of Christianity, so on all these things, we will consistently disagree.

Its not a bad deed to the husband and his mistress who found happiness and pleasure with each other.. In their minds, its wonderful and good, so screw the wife.. Its the same with God, we can't claim to be doing good deeds and expect a God that we've rejected to give us credit for it. God defines what's good, and it starts with the first commandment. There are things we do that are good in and of themselves. God does not punish those things, he punishes sin.. If a person murders your wife and then washes your car for free, do you give him credit or punish him?

If a husband is unfaithful to his wife, is it wrong for the wife to not give her husband credit for pleasing the other woman? If we aren't faithful to God, nothing else matters. Faith without works is dead, and works without faith is dead. You only need a God if you wish to live, but if your content with life ending in 80 years or so, I guess God isn't a priority.. For believers, God is not a cultural habit, He's the beginning and the end of their existence.

There's nothing in the bible that says Satan can be or will be forgiven, he's already been sentenced to death; "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.." (Revelation 20:10). Its a done deal... God isn't all about unity and love; "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:17). "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast..." (Genesis 6:7). "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:41-42). None of this sounds very lovey-dovey for a God who's love is unconditional? Choosing to love sin and unrighteousness (Satan), is not choosing God's side. You may love Satan, but here's how Jesus felt about him; "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). I don't believe you can love Christ and Satan at the same time, they are polar opposites...

Free will... Satan has not, and will not repent.. Prayer is useful, but asking God to green light sin is asking Him to be unrighteous, and that won't ever happen. Different outcomes can't require requesting that God change His character... jmo