| Jay520 said: You say choice is the reason there is nonresistant nonbelief. But nonresistant nonbelief does not describe people who choose not to believe in God. Nonresistant nonbelief describes people who do not believe in God, not by fault of their own. This describes people who have tried to believe in God, but could not do so. These people never even had a chance to have a loving relationship with God even when they tried. An omnipotent God who genuinely wanted to have a relationship with everyone would have given everyone reasonable and fair means to find him. And by reasonable and fair, I don't mean things like blind faith, following your culture's religion, or merely guessing that he is there; since this means every individual's chance for finding God is a guessing game and/or is based on chance. A perfectly loving and all-powerful God would not base his discovery and guesses and chance. |
"Nonresistant nonbelief describes people who do not believe in God, not by fault of their own."
I agree with this as well; I went over that variation in my last post, in the last two sentences of the last paragraph.
"This describes people who have tried to believe in God, but could not do so. These people never even had a chance to have a loving relationship with God even when they tried."
However, this at first confused me, and suggests a type of people other than what I had initially thought you'd meant; so they've tried to believe in him in earlier attempts but eventually had a falling out or couldn't connect, yet they never had a chance to form a relationship with him even when they tried? Or are you specifying two different types of people? Because if they have tried to believe in God, yet couldn't, that still means they had the chance. In fact, as long as they're still living they still have the 'chance', so to speak. Is it their fault if they choose not to try again? Yes, partially, it is. It's their fault because they are still choosing whether or not they want to believe in him or not, and in order to live, you don't have to. You really, really don't. I'm aware of plenty of non-believers who've lived great lives, lived as good-natured people, and didn't die because of a drug overdose or suicide. Is it their fault that they lived as good-natured people? Yes, partially, it is, because they still chose whether or not they wanted to maintain their good-naturedness. They always had the chance to resort to a destructive attitude, but they chose not to. Probably because they just couldn't find it within themselves to commit to such a persona.
For people who have tried to believe in God, yet couldn't find it within themselves to commit themselves to such an uncertain entity, it's probably because they either see no benefit or never had an experience that convinced them of his existence in both physical and emotional realms. Bibilically, neither of these are really supposed to serve as the reason, however. The reason should be (paraphrased from a consistent, basic sentiment emphasized throughout the Bible [and very heavily in the Book of Job]) 'because God believes you should, and everything he believes is right and true'. It sounds pretty stupid and illogical at face-value, but hey, what would we know, right? He technically created the whole friken universe, after all. As a result, our desires and beliefs, in turn, are practically irrelevant in the face of his own.
"An omnipotent God who genuinely wanted to have a relationship with everyone would have given everyone reasonable and fair means to find him. And by reasonable and fair, I don't mean things like blind faith, following your culture's religion, or merely guessing that he is there; since this means every individual's chance for finding God is a guessing game and/or is based on chance. A perfectly loving and all-powerful God would not base his discovery and guesses and chance."
According to the Apostle Paul, every individual's chance for 'finding' God isn't based on guesses and chance; it's based on faith.
You categorized "blind faith" with the opposite of being reasonable and fair; however, that technically means "reasonable and fair" in your definition is an equal distribution of evidence hinting that he exists. The thing is, he doesn't want to do that. He simply doesn't. Because if he did, we really would not be having this discussion right now. And biblically, it's wrong to 'test' God. And as I mentioned earlier, the raw reason people are given to believe in him is that 'God believes they should, and everything he believes is right and true'.
Thus, people are supposed to "walk by faith and not by sight", I guess, because faith is stronger in that sense than sight -- if everyone was suddenly convinced of God's existence because he dropped down from the sky and told them "I exist" (this is an intentional exaggeration) then of course they'd believe in him. The possibility for their relationship to develop from scratch and thus be cemented as unbreakable and true is then scrambled. As seen in Exodus, for example -- even when Moses freed the Israeli people and were miraculously guided and saved, time and time again, by God, with their very own eyes, they still eventually fell out of their faith. Why? Because of time. Something that faith, by its very nature, is designed to withstand. It's a story directly from the Bible so using it as supporting evidence is a little circular, but personally it applies to real life just as easily; I myself am an example, as are millions of others out there dealing with addiction issues or problems with breaking bad habits, for instance. Sometimes, not even visual displays or even fear can make people change. And how could a perfectly loving God who embraces the essence of relationship risk the chance of irreversibly forming an imperfect one -- and, as a result, risking another Fall of Man?
