How do you know if God has forgiven you?

[Anonymous]

^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think it's really about personal responsibility? Why do you need God to forgive you for something you did that you know is wrong? Why don't you accept that you did something wrong, and work to be better? Why not forgive yourself and move forward to being a better person?

What exactly do you need God's forgiveness for?

We also need God's forgiveness before we can really forgive ourselves.

People who don't believe in god forgive themselves just fine.

Maybe. If you say so. But I'm not convinced that someone who has committed a truly heinous sin or crime -- adultery, robbery, etc. -- can ever find personal peace or redemption without the love of God intervening.

If you don't believe in an invisible supernatural being, then receiving "redemption" from the being is immaterial. Plus, statistically, non-believers are much less likely to commit heinous crimes for which forgiveness is thought to be needed.

It's not immaterial when the guilt, consequences of the action, etc. eat away at you for the rest of your life. And they will, if not properly dealt with. And as to your statistic... where in the world did you get that? I don't believe that one for a minute, sorry!

You don't believe that for one minute? Even without evidence, a generalized assertion of mathematical statistics a lot more believable than the assertion of a supernatural creator. Anyway, here are the statistics:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population, but 2.8% of the general population. Logic follows then, that atheists are less likely to commit heinous crimes.

I also find the concept of vicarious redemption entirely immoral - the Christian concept that as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, your sins are forgiven. You don't have to do anything other than accept Jesus, that's the one and only criterion for redemption. Your debts and guilt are then absolved and forgiven because Jesus has suffered the punishment for you. That's immoral and entirely contrary to the concept of personal responsibility. This is why Atheists are less likely to perform immoral acts because they don't subscribe to the belief that your guilt, conscience, and burden of being a good person can be transferred to someone else. There is no excuse, no scapegoating, no numbing comfort from a fictional book read back in soothing tone by someone who's primary goal is to keep up the illusion and increase his flock.

Crimes that take people to prison are the not the only heinous crimes. There are also issues of sin, which may not be illegal but are still immoral and require forgiveness, both from self and others, often.

And I don't know where you, as an atheist, are getting your Christian doctrine, but you are incorrect in that as well. No one, including Jesus and the Bible, ever said that the "one and only criteria" for redemption is accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. That may be the only requirement for SALVATION, but that is a separate thing.

List out some heinous crimes that do not take people to prison. Go ahead.

Issue of sin is highly subjective and is the reason why there are huge divides on social issues in the US such as premarital sex, same sex relationships, abortion, and etc. Religious rules about sin have no solid grounds on basic human morality, which is why the aforementioned "sin" have increasingly become non-criminal activities as society progressed through modern times.

With regards to Christian doctrine, I find it humorous that an Atheist have to educate you on these points. Christianity distances itself from the other Abrahamic religions with the claim that it is the only one where salvation/redemption is not obtained through doing good, that salvation/redemption can only be given by God, as a gift, if you accept Jesus as your savior. The concept here is that there is nothing you can do, in terms of acts of good work, to earn your salvation. Sure Jesus preaches that you should be good to others, and to "go sin no more", but none of this is actually necessary for salvation/redemption. As to criteria for redemption:


Peter 1:18-19

Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ.

As you can see, you are redeemed by the human sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing else can redeem you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think it's really about personal responsibility? Why do you need God to forgive you for something you did that you know is wrong? Why don't you accept that you did something wrong, and work to be better? Why not forgive yourself and move forward to being a better person?

What exactly do you need God's forgiveness for?

We also need God's forgiveness before we can really forgive ourselves.

People who don't believe in god forgive themselves just fine.

Maybe. If you say so. But I'm not convinced that someone who has committed a truly heinous sin or crime -- adultery, robbery, etc. -- can ever find personal peace or redemption without the love of God intervening.

If you don't believe in an invisible supernatural being, then receiving "redemption" from the being is immaterial. Plus, statistically, non-believers are much less likely to commit heinous crimes for which forgiveness is thought to be needed.

It's not immaterial when the guilt, consequences of the action, etc. eat away at you for the rest of your life. And they will, if not properly dealt with. And as to your statistic... where in the world did you get that? I don't believe that one for a minute, sorry!

You don't believe that for one minute? Even without evidence, a generalized assertion of mathematical statistics a lot more believable than the assertion of a supernatural creator. Anyway, here are the statistics:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population, but 2.8% of the general population. Logic follows then, that atheists are less likely to commit heinous crimes.

I also find the concept of vicarious redemption entirely immoral - the Christian concept that as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, your sins are forgiven. You don't have to do anything other than accept Jesus, that's the one and only criterion for redemption. Your debts and guilt are then absolved and forgiven because Jesus has suffered the punishment for you. That's immoral and entirely contrary to the concept of personal responsibility. This is why Atheists are less likely to perform immoral acts because they don't subscribe to the belief that your guilt, conscience, and burden of being a good person can be transferred to someone else. There is no excuse, no scapegoating, no numbing comfort from a fictional book read back in soothing tone by someone who's primary goal is to keep up the illusion and increase his flock.

Crimes that take people to prison are the not the only heinous crimes. There are also issues of sin, which may not be illegal but are still immoral and require forgiveness, both from self and others, often.

And I don't know where you, as an atheist, are getting your Christian doctrine, but you are incorrect in that as well. No one, including Jesus and the Bible, ever said that the "one and only criteria" for redemption is accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. That may be the only requirement for SALVATION, but that is a separate thing.

List out some heinous crimes that do not take people to prison. Go ahead.

Issue of sin is highly subjective and is the reason why there are huge divides on social issues in the US such as premarital sex, same sex relationships, abortion, and etc. Religious rules about sin have no solid grounds on basic human morality, which is why the aforementioned "sin" have increasingly become non-criminal activities as society progressed through modern times.

With regards to Christian doctrine, I find it humorous that an Atheist have to educate you on these points. Christianity distances itself from the other Abrahamic religions with the claim that it is the only one where salvation/redemption is not obtained through doing good, that salvation/redemption can only be given by God, as a gift, if you accept Jesus as your savior. The concept here is that there is nothing you can do, in terms of acts of good work, to earn your salvation. Sure Jesus preaches that you should be good to others, and to "go sin no more", but none of this is actually necessary for salvation/redemption. As to criteria for redemption:


Peter 1:18-19

Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ.

As you can see, you are redeemed by the human sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing else can redeem you.

How wonderful that Father god purposely brought his only son here to earth to be tortured and killed for us. We are so lucky to be given this opportunity for eternal salvation that it can be difficult to understand how anyone could possibly turn it down. God's own son suffered horribly for YOU and for all of us. It seems the least we can do is believe in him, especially when the alternative is hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

bystander or not, in the game of life we all are affected by the choice to accept or reject Jesus sacrifice. Back in the days of Jesus, blood sacrifice was common. Now it's not, in fact it's against the law. But god is timeless and outside of man's law. He can do what he wants and what he wanted was to send his only son here to be tortured and killed for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think it's really about personal responsibility? Why do you need God to forgive you for something you did that you know is wrong? Why don't you accept that you did something wrong, and work to be better? Why not forgive yourself and move forward to being a better person?

What exactly do you need God's forgiveness for?

We also need God's forgiveness before we can really forgive ourselves.

People who don't believe in god forgive themselves just fine.

Maybe. If you say so. But I'm not convinced that someone who has committed a truly heinous sin or crime -- adultery, robbery, etc. -- can ever find personal peace or redemption without the love of God intervening.

If you don't believe in an invisible supernatural being, then receiving "redemption" from the being is immaterial. Plus, statistically, non-believers are much less likely to commit heinous crimes for which forgiveness is thought to be needed.

It's not immaterial when the guilt, consequences of the action, etc. eat away at you for the rest of your life. And they will, if not properly dealt with. And as to your statistic... where in the world did you get that? I don't believe that one for a minute, sorry!

You don't believe that for one minute? Even without evidence, a generalized assertion of mathematical statistics a lot more believable than the assertion of a supernatural creator. Anyway, here are the statistics:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population, but 2.8% of the general population. Logic follows then, that atheists are less likely to commit heinous crimes.

I also find the concept of vicarious redemption entirely immoral - the Christian concept that as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, your sins are forgiven. You don't have to do anything other than accept Jesus, that's the one and only criterion for redemption. Your debts and guilt are then absolved and forgiven because Jesus has suffered the punishment for you. That's immoral and entirely contrary to the concept of personal responsibility. This is why Atheists are less likely to perform immoral acts because they don't subscribe to the belief that your guilt, conscience, and burden of being a good person can be transferred to someone else. There is no excuse, no scapegoating, no numbing comfort from a fictional book read back in soothing tone by someone who's primary goal is to keep up the illusion and increase his flock.

Crimes that take people to prison are the not the only heinous crimes. There are also issues of sin, which may not be illegal but are still immoral and require forgiveness, both from self and others, often.

And I don't know where you, as an atheist, are getting your Christian doctrine, but you are incorrect in that as well. No one, including Jesus and the Bible, ever said that the "one and only criteria" for redemption is accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. That may be the only requirement for SALVATION, but that is a separate thing.

List out some heinous crimes that do not take people to prison. Go ahead.

Issue of sin is highly subjective and is the reason why there are huge divides on social issues in the US such as premarital sex, same sex relationships, abortion, and etc. Religious rules about sin have no solid grounds on basic human morality, which is why the aforementioned "sin" have increasingly become non-criminal activities as society progressed through modern times.

With regards to Christian doctrine, I find it humorous that an Atheist have to educate you on these points. Christianity distances itself from the other Abrahamic religions with the claim that it is the only one where salvation/redemption is not obtained through doing good, that salvation/redemption can only be given by God, as a gift, if you accept Jesus as your savior. The concept here is that there is nothing you can do, in terms of acts of good work, to earn your salvation. Sure Jesus preaches that you should be good to others, and to "go sin no more", but none of this is actually necessary for salvation/redemption. As to criteria for redemption:


Peter 1:18-19

Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ.

As you can see, you are redeemed by the human sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing else can redeem you.

How wonderful that Father god purposely brought his only son here to earth to be tortured and killed for us. We are so lucky to be given this opportunity for eternal salvation that it can be difficult to understand how anyone could possibly turn it down. God's own son suffered horribly for YOU and for all of us. It seems the least we can do is believe in him, especially when the alternative is hell.

LOL, so you've conceded the point being argued? Why the heck would I subject myself to a belief system just shown in this discussion thread to result in more likelihood to commit heinous crimes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

bystander or not, in the game of life we all are affected by the choice to accept or reject Jesus sacrifice. Back in the days of Jesus, blood sacrifice was common. Now it's not, in fact it's against the law. But god is timeless and outside of man's law. He can do what he wants and what he wanted was to send his only son here to be tortured and killed for us.

Blood sacrifice is immoral, this is why it's illegal. Only an immoral God would use an immoral act like blood sacrifice. Why would you pray to an immoral God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

Yes, actually, you are. And I pray that you realize that before it's too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

You know, I say this with all respect (and I truly mean that), but you sound just like my 7 year old.

"I'M NOT GOING WITH YOU TO THE STORE."

"Yes, sweetie, in fact you are."

"BUT I DON'T LIKE IT."

"I'm sorry you don't like it. But your liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it."

"I'M GOING TO STAY HERE BY MYSELF."

"No, you're not."

And so forth....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

You know, I say this with all respect (and I truly mean that), but you sound just like my 7 year old.

"I'M NOT GOING WITH YOU TO THE STORE."

"Yes, sweetie, in fact you are."

"BUT I DON'T LIKE IT."

"I'm sorry you don't like it. But your liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it."

"I'M GOING TO STAY HERE BY MYSELF."

"No, you're not."

And so forth....

You and the PP are confused. I am describing how atheists view your attitude that your imaginary believes apply to non-believers. You and the PP then confirms this by continuing to assert that what you believe is objective reality, when in fact you have no factual basis for making this claim. You can't even understand and argue within the context that your religion is just a subset of the larger real world, instead asserting that your religion *IS* the real world. If I can further the analogy, you (christians) are playing a game of monopoly, some people over there (muslims) are playing a game of scrabble, and some more people (hindus) are playing chess; of course there are the non players like us (atheists) just standing and watching with some amusement that each of you claim that your game is the one true game and that your in-game rules apply to everyone else whether they like it or not. I am making this analogy for you to see just how ridiculous this situation is.

As for your stance of treating non-believers like children, I will just put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

You know, I say this with all respect (and I truly mean that), but you sound just like my 7 year old.

"I'M NOT GOING WITH YOU TO THE STORE."

"Yes, sweetie, in fact you are."

"BUT I DON'T LIKE IT."

"I'm sorry you don't like it. But your liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it."

"I'M GOING TO STAY HERE BY MYSELF."

"No, you're not."

And so forth....

You and the PP are confused. I am describing how atheists view your attitude that your imaginary believes apply to non-believers. You and the PP then confirms this by continuing to assert that what you believe is objective reality, when in fact you have no factual basis for making this claim. You can't even understand and argue within the context that your religion is just a subset of the larger real world, instead asserting that your religion *IS* the real world. If I can further the analogy, you (christians) are playing a game of monopoly, some people over there (muslims) are playing a game of scrabble, and some more people (hindus) are playing chess; of course there are the non players like us (atheists) just standing and watching with some amusement that each of you claim that your game is the one true game and that your in-game rules apply to everyone else whether they like it or not. I am making this analogy for you to see just how ridiculous this situation is.

As for your stance of treating non-believers like children, I will just put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

NP. Speaking as a believer, even if we're debating who has the correct game board at least we're all participating in the tournament rather than sitting on the sidelines full of amusement, which really is your own brand of certainty and pomposity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

You know, I say this with all respect (and I truly mean that), but you sound just like my 7 year old.

"I'M NOT GOING WITH YOU TO THE STORE."

"Yes, sweetie, in fact you are."

"BUT I DON'T LIKE IT."

"I'm sorry you don't like it. But your liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it."

"I'M GOING TO STAY HERE BY MYSELF."

"No, you're not."

And so forth....

You and the PP are confused. I am describing how atheists view your attitude that your imaginary believes apply to non-believers. You and the PP then confirms this by continuing to assert that what you believe is objective reality, when in fact you have no factual basis for making this claim. You can't even understand and argue within the context that your religion is just a subset of the larger real world, instead asserting that your religion *IS* the real world. If I can further the analogy, you (christians) are playing a game of monopoly, some people over there (muslims) are playing a game of scrabble, and some more people (hindus) are playing chess; of course there are the non players like us (atheists) just standing and watching with some amusement that each of you claim that your game is the one true game and that your in-game rules apply to everyone else whether they like it or not. I am making this analogy for you to see just how ridiculous this situation is.

As for your stance of treating non-believers like children, I will just put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

NP. Speaking as a believer, even if we're debating who has the correct game board at least we're all participating in the tournament rather than sitting on the sidelines full of amusement, which really is your own brand of certainty and pomposity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with certainty and pomposity. I am certain that if a car is driven into a concrete wall, one or both will be damaged. Any rational person standing next tome observing the same would agree with me in this certainty. However, if I am further certain that the car will further detonate in a nuclear explosion leading to WWIII, based purely on faith with no actual real evidence of it, then a bystander may think that I am delusional. If I further then go around chastising the bystanders by declaring "well at least I am engaged in thinking up a doomsday scenario, and your non-participation in this activity is just your own brand of certainty and pomposity", how do you think that appears to the bystanders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ criterion

To be sure, there is no salvation without forgiveness. Forgiveness and redemption is God's erasing and forgetting our sin. Salvation is God’s delivering us from the consequences of this sin, which without Him, is eternal damnation.

However, as we all know, we must also forgive our own sins and others must often forgive us for the pain that our sin causes them. We all sin and come short of God's glory, even atheists who think they are exempt because they take personal responsibility for their actions.

What that reads like, to an Atheist, is like a bystander watching a game of Monopoly, hearing one of the players claim that all must pay rent on his hotels, even the game watchers. In any other context but religion, this type of behavior would have been ridiculed. Stupid logic is stupid.

The difference is, in the Game of Life, no one is a bystander, even if they want to be.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact sharing in the mindset of that delusional Monopoly player. You are in your own little game; Atheists are not in it.

You know, I say this with all respect (and I truly mean that), but you sound just like my 7 year old.

"I'M NOT GOING WITH YOU TO THE STORE."

"Yes, sweetie, in fact you are."

"BUT I DON'T LIKE IT."

"I'm sorry you don't like it. But your liking it or not liking it has nothing to do with it."

"I'M GOING TO STAY HERE BY MYSELF."

"No, you're not."

And so forth....

You and the PP are confused. I am describing how atheists view your attitude that your imaginary believes apply to non-believers. You and the PP then confirms this by continuing to assert that what you believe is objective reality, when in fact you have no factual basis for making this claim. You can't even understand and argue within the context that your religion is just a subset of the larger real world, instead asserting that your religion *IS* the real world. If I can further the analogy, you (christians) are playing a game of monopoly, some people over there (muslims) are playing a game of scrabble, and some more people (hindus) are playing chess; of course there are the non players like us (atheists) just standing and watching with some amusement that each of you claim that your game is the one true game and that your in-game rules apply to everyone else whether they like it or not. I am making this analogy for you to see just how ridiculous this situation is.

As for your stance of treating non-believers like children, I will just put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

NP. Speaking as a believer, even if we're debating who has the correct game board at least we're all participating in the tournament rather than sitting on the sidelines full of amusement, which really is your own brand of certainty and pomposity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with certainty and pomposity. I am certain that if a car is driven into a concrete wall, one or both will be damaged. Any rational person standing next tome observing the same would agree with me in this certainty. However, if I am further certain that the car will further detonate in a nuclear explosion leading to WWIII, based purely on faith with no actual real evidence of it, then a bystander may think that I am delusional. If I further then go around chastising the bystanders by declaring "well at least I am engaged in thinking up a doomsday scenario, and your non-participation in this activity is just your own brand of certainty and pomposity", how do you think that appears to the bystanders?

You delight yourself.