|
DyranLK said: 1. I agree with this as well; I went over that variation in my last post, in the last two sentences of the last paragraph. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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'. 6. 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? |
1. Okay, referring to your last two sentences: That's the problem. Millions of people are destined to never find God, not because of their own fault, but because other people neglected to inform them about God. God knows this with his omniscience and can change this with his omnipotence. And by "change this", I don't mean force these people to follow Him, but at least offer them a fair opportunity to find Him. Instead, He let's their fate be determined be factors outside of their control. He doesn't give certain individuals fair opportunity to form a loving relationship with him. Which means He is not perfectly loving.
2 & 3: Forget I ever said anything about "people who tried to believe in God, but couldn't". While I believe these people do exist and their lack of belief in God is not their own fault, a better argument can be made for people who haven't even been introduced to God.
4. Faith = guesses and chance. Every religion says you should have faith in their religion. So for a person to miraculously follow the correct religion, they would have to either be born into the correct culture (chance), or get lucky and randomly choose the correct religion (guesses). And for those born in a culture with no religion, they pretty much have no chance for finding God. These people do not have fair and reasonable opportunities to find God. A loving God would give everyone a fair and reasonable opportunity to find him, but that is not the case.
5. I'm not talking about reasons to follow God. Sure you could say it's right to follow God (according to God), but that's not what I'm arguiing. I'm arguing that some people do not have fair and reasonable opportunity to do so.
6. You're saying you need faith to follow God. I've pointed out why this does not portary a loving God in point 4.
