The Christian Developers Network

@IrishCream:



I would have to personally disagree... The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is what? I think we could agree on choice (correct me if I'm wrong that you'd agree to that). Choosing to follow Christ implies our own choice and result of free will. So to accept God's rightousness is not the product of our actions, but it cannot happen without our own choice. So the difference here is I believe God "influences" us but does not "interfere" (force a different direction). Other wise what would be the point in choosing to follow Jesus, if it was forced then there would be no choice or purpose for spreading the word at all. Which I would disagree with.

_________________
Matthew Langley
Lead Tool Development Engineer
GarageGames

Actually, Matt, what I was trying to say was that when people choose to do evil, God sometimes lets them, and even more than this, turns them over to their own sins, such as when He hardened Pharaoh's heart.

As for the other people you mentioned, including Christians, not giving God authority in their lives, bingo. That's the human condition for you. The difference is that the squabbling believers are at least citizens of God's Kingdom, even if they often lose sight of the REAL rules (having a deep & meaningful relationship with God and each other). The atheists, by definition, will never acknowledge the one true King (and I don't mean Elvis).

But yes, of course, many atheists do many good things.

The First "Myth" in scripture (Genesis 1-2) defines God and mankind, creation, the relationship of all three, and what life is about. Who/what is God, who/what are we, and why are we here? What is good in life? For the purposes of this discussion, people were created in God's image. That is, not their bodies (God doesn't have one in His default-mode), but their spirit/soul. The blueprint of our psyche, I believe, is based on the Godhead. This means that we are inherently noble creatures, wonderfully and fearfully made. I've just been reading a book on chemical thermodynamics, so I'm inclined to relate this factoid to the First Law of thermodynamics: energy can't be created or destroyed. The imago dei can't either, and this applies to atheists as well as believers.

The Second "Myth" in scripture (Genesis 3) adds a "second law" to our spiritual reality--the law of sin, equivalent to the law of entropy-- everything tends to bottom out. We erode. Despite our inherent nobility, we became inherently flawed, like a beautiful Greek vase (the blue and gold kind, with scenes from myths, legends, and fables) with a BIG crack in it. We're still quite a prize, but no longer quite so functional as vessels of honor unto the Lord. This applies to everyone, believers as well as atheists.

Hmmm... somewhere in there I might have addressed another thread--the one on freewill. Perhaps WE have free-will because God has freewill, and He created us in His image, to be like Him (in quality, not quantity or dimension). If He did not give us freewill, then we would not be like Him.

Which gets back to Calvinism. I'm always under the impression it's flawed, because it sounds to me like God HAS to be constantly controlling everything in the universe. I'm of the opinion that God, being God, can do (or not do) anything He wants. If He wants to wind up things like a watch, and let it go, He can do that. If He wants to interfere, He can do that to. Of course the main constraint here is what determines what He wants (His infinite wisdom and His infinite love, and His eternality).

Anyways, I digress.

I miss this.

_________________
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God." John 6:67-69

http://wiki.dandascalescu.com/essays/ho ... _believers

Doesn't being lied to give you that warm, fuzzy feeling?

_________________
Q.E.D.

Critics will be critics, and nitpickers will be nitpickers, I only wish they got a bit more intelligent and less rational.

By that I mean, he should be a little less proud about out-arguing a middle schooler.

_________________
M^2 out-
The Deut strikes back!
Its time to get Terminal!
Have I mentioned I love BLIDE?
New Creation Games

I'm with you Cheesestorm, I wrote a few responses. He implemented brilliant tactics poorly... He didn't check in that the people that he supposedly outwitted were rational or in high school.

_________________
M^2 out-
The Deut strikes back!
Its time to get Terminal!
Have I mentioned I love BLIDE?
New Creation Games

that's funny. what's even funnier is if he gets saved and then can't explain it, lol!

give your life to Christ, reason, and become our real brother, like your mouth has said. What you meant for a lie will become true, by the Power of Jesus Christ.

Haha, yeah. I'll admit, it's good to have the Resident Atheist back.
One who sticks around for the fights


And yeah, I was a bit miffed by the two items you mentioned. He did come to us under deceptive pretenses and set himself up to avoid real debate, in an ironically titled article "how to debate...".

I also found his article to be a bit lacking. I like how he dismisses our reasoning as "bible babbling" and "usual justification" without ever addressing why they would be invalid. Might he be exempt from the usual rule of logic, since he's not religiously brainwashed?
That sort of reasoning can dismiss everything, after all, isn't the theory of gravity just the usual justification for why things fall towards the earth? Yeah, whatever, you brainwashed lunnys.
Which, brings us back to your point B. Despite having logical holes in his article that brainwashed millions can wander through, he can still feel superior.

Or maybe I can't stand to not have the last word...
Ahh, insecurities, my old friends.

_________________
Q.E.D.

If I can just say one more thing, Arch: it's totally cool for you to have the last word.

Since i didint at least by quick look notice anyone giving biut different kind of argument to this, i will point it then.


Now this question of "pointless" suffer is very interesting one and happens to have to do with anotheer question, which is anot wetheer we have destiny or free will.


First of all, somewhere in bible there is this thing that God punishes sins all the way to 4 generations of children and so on.

Now i personally believe one part of this sin punishment to next generations is about how your evil doings shaped this world for your children.

For example, were you born in some Christian Country or Islam country makes quite big difference wether you will ahve how good chance of becoming saved.

If you were born in US, theres good chance for you to get saved, since Christ is talked there all the time.

If yo happened to be born in Iraq, well, most likely youre going to hell (at this moment at least, changes can of course happen).

Now is this fair? No. But who said it would be?

If you had Christian parents who kept praying everyday, or two extreme atheists as youre parents, well, once again - guy with christian parents has much better chance.

And yes. Its not fair again.

But in the beginning, Everyone had same chance. There was Adam and Eve, and basically al ltheir Children had pretty much same chance on hearing about God and so on.

Then some made wrong choice. Cain killed Abel and so on.

All the way to having Prophet muhammed and al lthe way to having Iran.

And because earlier generations sinned, there you are, on your way to hell. *censored* luck, but what can you do about it.

So i believe that is one of the meaning of your sins will be punished all the way to next generations.

Oh yeah, and it is also actually quite new idea that people are all equal. Its bit of distortion nowadays.

For example Scandinavian countries are thought to be very advanced in equality giving everyone same chances etc.

but as example in Sweden it was maybe something like year 1 600 when there came a law that you are not allowed to rape women who are wondering alone outside of town.

Before that it wasnt punishable. It sounds astonishing nowadays, but thats because weve been spoiled with all this equal rights thing, which of course is great. But it doesnt mean that everything would be that way in everything. I was born here, you were born here, one of us has better chance of getting saved that nother, and thats how it is. And this sitauation have been shaped by earlier generations, and we are jsut getting it now what they did.

So from this we get to say Tsunami in Thailand.

Well, maybe if the original inhabitatns of Thailand had been close to God they had heard when God was screaming to their ears "Dont settle there! Its dangerous to your grandgrandgrand...children!"

Or maybe they did right when they srettled, but later generations didint listen to God and do as they were supposed to when he once again screamed "Move out of there!" or actually more likely was that God was pointing out that they should put up a warning system for Tsunamis, like they have in Japan.

For there were talks of that going BEFORE Tsunami, but they just didint do it since it was pretty expensive investment. I bet if they had been praying there, God had been screaming to their ears all the time even before they started prraying "Install it, its cheap price compared to what it saves from you, you wont regret it, do it now!"

So saying there is unnecessary evil, is not quite right. Since everything comes from something. If everyone had done right right from beginning, Tsunami hadnt necessary done anything.

Actually, just think of it. If world would be only slightly nicer place to be and live at, other, wealthier countries would have said "Hey, we see youre problem, you dont have money to install that system, but because it can save lots of lives, let us pay it, since we like you"

And that is not even very far from us. For people did doante loads of money to help those people in need AFTER tsunami. If they had given that same money before, that had propably changed a lot.

Or maybe God had wanted people to pray for that to get it away, but there werent enough ears listening to prevent that.

and so on.

But anyway. So is it fair that some infant dies? No.
But real question comes if that infant when to heaven or not.
And if that infant went to hell because he coudlnt take Jesus Christ, then it comes to next question.
If that infnat had no chacne to do anything, was it fair to send him to hell? And can God be that cruel?

Now thats a tricky question.

for basically if that infant goes to hell, then only way i can get God to escape from that is that we have determined fate already which at same time includes free will.

What i mean by that?

Well, God runs us through a computer simulation which is same to everyone. That means, that everyone has same chance of passing it. If they fail the simulation, then theyre going to hell, if they succeed, they get to heaven.

And after that point, our life in here is just kinf of a play.

So it means, that if someone passess that prelife simulation, then God Himself makes sure you will accept Chrsist at some point, and if you fail, well, the nyou just wont accept Him.

So in this case all the infants that die as infants and go to hell, well, it doesnt really matter then, since they had went to hell anyway, they just went there bit sooner.

For if they had been destined to heaven, then they havent died as infant.

Im not saying that is my opinion, for i havent really figured out answer to taht fate question, but im just pointing out that this is one possibility to view this all, not to mention that this question about unnecessary evil and past generations sins affecting future generations life are both pretty much connected questions. That if answer IS some certain kind of answer, then it might make the next questiions answer be THIS and THIS and so on.

My friend, if you're for real, all I have to say is...

You. Scare. Me. How in blazes did you get so messed up, man? :/
(This is why I'm inclined to think you're joking)

First of all lazarus.

Your comment wasnt very useful. You just basically said that you disagree, but you didint say to what and why? So theres nothing i can defend to your answer.

Secondly, to clarify a bit.

Basically i do believe not hundred percent, but it seems like most logic answer the idea that your sins affect the world and part of that punishing to next generations is the way your sin shapes world.

Like choices in example country iran have made it quite hard for someone born there to find Jesus.

And also in light of this i am to beleive that there is no such thing as unnecessary evil, like that animal burning in forest fire.

I believe that deers burning in forest fire was indirect result of either mans doings or not doings or doings of some say evil spirits. (and im not talkling of any buddhist or inpersonal evil things here, im talking of those guys Jesus drove away from people etc.)

I anyway dont believe that deer is burnt in forest just because God designed this pllace to be like that. I believe God designed this place to be good for everyone to be, but since we havent done what we should have done all the time, it have resulted in these accidents where deers get burned etc.

Is it fair for that deer? No. but thats how it is anyway.


But then the rest was more of speculation.

The point is that i have been thinking about this question of do babies go to heaven or not, or say aborted babies, (supposing they have soul installed to them even yet).

For point is that from bible you can find two different ideas.

One is theological term i dont know in english, but i would translate it from finnish to english about as "people are bornsin" Meaning that right from beginning you already have sin in you, not that you are someone who is going to definately make a sin, but are already a sinner.

Now in that view, i cant really find no other way for babies but to hell if they dont accept Jesus first (which they dont).

Now then there is this other view of which i personally think is right one that infants go to heaven through old covenant, since they havent done a sin yet. Of course on this old covenant im not sure if it works, since it might be that you would first need to accept the old covenant and after you accept it your sins maybe get zerod and then you are supposed not to sin no more.

But anyway.

Supposing the idea that infants and aborted babies get to heaven because they havent done a sin yet is right.

This still leaves us question of when does a human do their first sin.

I mean, im pretty sure that by 2 year old you already had did something wrong that you shouldnt have done. Gave trouble to your mother/father, didint obey their order.

So if you died as 2 year old, its quite unlikely you took Jesus yet as your savior.

Of course we can then ask wether 2 year old child gets to heaven because of his Christian parents. (there are views like that too)

But anyway, its a question ive been wondering, since answer to that question proapbly also sets some light to destiny/free will question.

For if (as i more think not to be true) infant/aborted babies go to hell because of this bornsin and not accepting Christ as their savior yet.

Then only way to make that acceptable is if God runs us through some sort of simulation - you know in way of even before the base of this world i already laid basis for your saving etc.

And no one comes to lord unless he pulls you etc. (free quotes from memory)

So that it would mean that if you passed that "simulation" then God will make sure you wil lget saved, and hence you wouldnt die as infant. So that all that were aborted or died as infants, were those guys who failed the pre life "simulation".

Because otherwise this would result in some people going to hell just because they happened to be born or almost born and there was basically nothing they could have done to it, and that would make God real terrible guy in my opinion.

Although once again. God sets the rules, so what ever he does, what are we going to do about it but suffer the concequences.

I still think you're putting me on, because I have never heard such crazy theology in all my days.

Well this bornsin thing (i cant properly transalte it from Finnish to English) is actually Pentacoastal Churches official view actually, as official as any teaching can be in pentacoastal church since basically they just say that theyre teaching is bible.

But friend of mine was studying in pnetacoastal bible study school and there was one teacher/professor whatever whowas considered as the expert on that area in Finland, and he had been in US etc. and he said this bornsin is basically the official view of pentacoastal church.

And if you accept this bornsin as view, then that basically seems (I underline SEEMS) to mean that aborted babies/infants all go to hell, since they dont get to accept Jesus yet.

I basically disagree with that view, since i think they get in through old covenant by not having done a sin yet.

But havent found definite answer yet.

But anyway, if this is the case that they go to hell, then how can that be? Some "Innocent" child goes to hell right away without having any chance to do anything?

Well only way to me seems that calvinism then. that there is this "simulation" not really simulation, but just the idea that God knows as all and everyone has same chacne and putten to same place some make right choice and some dont and then He makes sure saved ones get saved.

But im against Calvinism. I believe we have lot of free will even here. Although we can question if there is any random etc.

Since this is getting very side topic already i just side this random factor quick.

So you flip a coin. what are chances you get Head or tails? 50/50 you say.

I say no chance. It depends how you throw it, on what circumstances, fro what height, on what position etc.

And i say that if everything, the way to throw, height, outside conditions are EXACTLY same, then the coin will always flip to same side.

So its only random to us, since there are too many factors for us to calculate them all.

There is nothing random in this world. Actually basically God couldnt even let there be any Random thing since if there would be one randomly moving Atom, it could result in blowing the whole world out basically.

Then we get to freedom of choice.

Now when di dyou last time choose the second best choice? Never? yeah, thats right.

You always chooce the most desirable choice.

I wonder which one i eat, stake, strawberry or pancake. I most want the Stake, so i take it.

I might take Strawberry, just to prove the theroy wrong, but then my storngest desire was to prove that theory wrong by taking something else than my biggest desire, andi once again proven the theory.

So your wife asks you to dish. You dont want to, but you dish anyway. Was that the second best choice? No.
It was your first desire, since your biggest desire was to avoid the conflict with your wife, so you rather dished than had fitght with your wife about that. You chose from two bads the less bad.

Now at what point did you have free will? didnt you just always choose the best option for you, never the slightest desire?

Thats a good question.

Strictly from worldly scientific point of view, I cant find any free choice.

Which once again raises the question about calvinism, are we after all destined to do what we do? Then how can God punish us by hell if we had no chance to do anything else?

Well, that prelife "simulation" would give chance that that is true random with free will.

Now in my opinion, which isnt very good argument actually, but this how i argue anyway is that since God is so great, He is also possible to make us a true random free will.

So i believe that in our brains there is this isolated area, which makes us have limited free will to make free decisions.

its not scientifically good argument, but it at least makes sense that God indeed can do something like that.

For total free will we dont have. You dont decide to just start jumping on your head, since things are affecting your decision on that thing.

But i believe we can have limited free will like in accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ etc.

You lost me at "Jesus is sending aborted babies to hell", I'm afraid.

I did never say Jesus was sending anyone to hell. Dont understand what you read.

What i saud is, that if you accept this "bornsin" view (which i personally dont) then that seems to means that even babies go to hell if they die, since there is there is no other way to hell but by accepting Jesus Christ.

So by otherwords:

- If you havent took Jesus as your saviour and you die, you go to hell.
- If we have this "bornsin" right from beginning, it means we need to accept Jesus as our savior right from beginning.
- Since i have never heard anyone under 1 year old accepting Jesus Christ as their savior, and even less someone who have been aborted. That would mean that if that kind of baby dies, he would enter the judgement in his sins due to this "bornsin" and hence would be destined to hell because of not accepting Jesus Christ as his savior yet.


And once again, I dont share this view.

In my view babies get to heaven through old covenant since they havent done a sin yet.

However, question in my view remains that at what point does a man become responsible for his actions?


Did you now understand?

i believe all people get a chance to acknowledge Jesus:
people who died before Jesus was raised from the dead
aborted babies and children below the age of accountability
people who are in remote areas and have not heard the gospel


but what amazes me is that cheesestorm is an atheist and he won speedgame 2009

congratulations again, cheesestorm!

Hahaha.

Yeah, that amazes me too.

I would be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.



@bugala - "Bornsin" sounds like either Sin nature or original sin.
Original Sin is the sin of taking the fruit from the garden that we are responsible for "through one man death entered the world". The scripture speaks as before Christ Adam being our head, our representative. Personally I struggle with the fact that I personally am literally held accountable for Adam eating the fruit.

Sin nature is simply man's nature to sin.

@Irish -- in my mind, there's little difference between the people in Paradise (like Noah), who knew Jesus in their Spirit, but did not know his name, and people who have never had a chance to hear the gospel.

Presumably, the people in Paradise recognized Jesus while he was "ministering" 3 days in the grave. Possibly, this would extend to people who had never heard of him. In principal, it's the same.

The law still stands as the measuring stick, to which no one measures up. We all deserve to go to Hell, and it's only through Christ that we don't. But I see that for some, Christ was accepted after their death. Possibly it will happen again. But I shouldn't think that everyone is good, or that just because a people are poor or in a remote village somewhere that they are good. Evil is not just found in a city, it's found in the hearts of men. Nor should I create bizzare circumstances in my head to test God's justice. ("What if there were aliens and blah blah blah...") ("What if I need to tell every single person I see that Jesus is Lord?")

We're to be lead by the Holy Spirit -- if to a remote place, then to there, or if to type on the internet, then to that. But when the question comes up, I can only say what the Law says: we're all sinners. And I can only testify to God's mercy to me: I should have gone to Hell, but He saved me.