If you were born into another religion..

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God has chosen, long before they were born, those who will be saved. But no circumstance of birth can prevent them being saved, so being born into a non-Christian religion is no indication of whether they will be saved or not.

Can you please tell me what is the point of anything if this is "true"?

wolfsbane

ironingbored wrote: »

Can you please tell me what is the point of anything if this is "true"?

The point of all things is God's glory and His people's happiness in Him.

Christ calls His people by the gospel; they hear and obey; He leads them by His Spirit through this evil world and brings them eventually to their eternal home with Him.

Have you a problem with this?
_________________________________________________________________
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

For example, my repenting doesn't cause salvation if my repenting is something that is sure to occur because of some prior event (election according to you and conviction according to me)

Quite.

I was working from the basis you seemed to be suggesting of the passage: a person seeing their need of salvation. You say that seeing their need (who shall save me from this body of death) must produce (thanks be to God..)

I ask "why must it?"

No, I do not say that seeing the need leads to any MUST for an unconverted man. He will go one way or the other. There are many who saw the need and are now in hell, having rejected the cost of discipleship. By MUST I meant if they are to be saved, conviction must be followed by repentance and faith - if it is not, they remain lost.

I'm still confused about your meaning on the 'tipping point'. You accept that many who are deeply convicted nevertheless reject Christ. But you say (I think) there is some level of conviction that cannot lead anywhere but salvation. What is that level of conviction and what brings it to one and not another?

Quote:
_________________________________________________________________
John 17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
One of those fascinating verses that indicate the mode of salvation: that the primary arrangement in salvation is between the father and the individual (whether by your election or my 'believing God'). That the tipping point occurs between God and the individual after which the individual is given over to the Son. As per John 18:9

The Father gives the elect person to Christ; Christ reveals to them the Father and Son, giving them eternal life. Seems clear they were elected before they were given to Christ, and eternal life came only when they 'knew' God. They were the Father's (election); they were given to Christ; Christ reveals Himself to them/calls them by the gospel. They have eternal life.
_________________________________________________________________
John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite.

Okay. I'm just trying to hold the focus on the cause of salvation. Election (God's will alone) vs. conviction (God's will & Man's will).

No, I do not say that seeing the need leads to any MUST for an unconverted man. He will go one way or the other. There are many who saw the need and are now in hell, having rejected the cost of discipleship. By MUST I meant if they are to be saved, conviction must be followed by repentance and faith - if it is not, they remain lost.

Firstly, I was working off this, regarding Romans7Man:

Wolfsbane wrote:

Sure - but if it ends there it is not conversion. 'Seeing the need' must lead to Paul's next words: I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

I queried this "must". Why must a conversion level conviction result in that sentiment expressed? (given that the alternative suggestion is: salvation for this man occurs at the moment of his conviction - at which point he is saved and at which point he is given to Christ and Christ is revealed as his saviour.)

We would, in other words, be looking at the case of a man just prior to salvation (who shall save me) and at a point after salvation - in the case the man had access to teaching about Jesus Christ. If he hadn't such access (as in the case of our newly-saved Tibetan sheep herder), he wouldn't be able to utter "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ". It wouldn't alter his having been convicted and saved however.

Must. Why must?

Secondly. The level of need expressed by Romans7Man appears absolute. It's an absolute capitulation of self-reliance - brought about by the Law (..being a schoolteacher to lead to Christ). This doesn't mean that the person with some kind of conviction of sin (brought about by the laws leading) has arrived at absolute conviction. No more than being on a path - however far along - is the same thing as being at the destination

Have you a biblical example of one of the many who were like Romans7Man, but who walked away?

I'm still confused about your meaning on the 'tipping point'. You accept that many who are deeply convicted nevertheless reject Christ. But you say (I think) there is some level of conviction that cannot lead anywhere but salvation. What is that level of conviction and what brings it to one and not another?

Absolute conviction. A conviction from which there is no escape. A mousetrap-like conviction in which the trap has sprung closed and pinned the man down. All other levels of conviction are 'recoverable from' and 'retreatable' from through act of will/through act of suppression. Men can suppress abominable things. They can resist the strongest convictions. But not Romans7Man. He is past the point of no return.

If conviction is to man's wilfulness as bending force is to twig, then absolute conviction is a SNAP! sound. It sounds something like "Oh wretched man that I am - who shall save me from this body of death". You don't retreat after you've been snapped in two. It's game over - eternal life begins.

The Father gives the elect person to Christ; Christ reveals to them the Father and Son, giving them eternal life. Seems clear they were elected before they were given to Christ,

Indeed. To be saved is to be elect. In that order. It appears to me that this predestined/elected-to-be-saved can nowhere be made in scripture. Or at least, the connection is tenuous and ambiguous (given the scale of the claim of that doctrine).

and eternal life came only when they 'knew' God. They were the Father's (election); they were given to Christ; Christ reveals Himself to them/calls them by the gospel. They have eternal life.

As I say, the case for elected to be saved would be an interesting one to see you attempt to make.

_________________________________________________________________
John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

Quite

Elected to be saved. Or saved to become elect. The verse applies to both views: the question being: which view is it?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point of all things is God's glory and His people's happiness in Him.

Christ calls His people by the gospel; they hear and obey; He leads them by His Spirit through this evil world and brings them eventually to their eternal home with Him.

Have you a problem with this?

For the people who are saved that makes sense but why would a loving god create billions of people for what appears to be the sole purpose of punishing them for being exactly the way he made them? If he has decided in advance that the vast majority of people on the planet are going to spend their lives corrupted by sin and their after lives in infinite and eternal agony then why create them in the first place?

Or are the billions of non-christians the work of Satan?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For the people who are saved that makes sense..

I wouldn't be too sure that those who adhere to Calvinist doctrine would say it's sensible in a classic sense

Punishing a cat for catching a mouse doesn't make sense - it is it's nature to catch mice afterall. Punishing a man for sinning when his nature is geared to sinning doesn't make sense - it's his nature afterall.

but why would a loving god create billions of people for what appears to be the sole purpose of punishing them for being exactly the way he made them?

As I understand it: John 3:16 can be taken as meaning "For God doesn't so love the world that he gave his only Son. Rather, he so loves the elect (those who he plans to save)".

If he has decided in advance that the vast majority of people on the planet are going to spend their lives corrupted by sin and their after lives in infinite and eternal agony then why create them in the first place

As I understand it: God's ways are above our ways in this area.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I understand it: God's ways are above our ways in this area.

Isn't that another way of saying "god works in mysterious ways", which is in itself another way of saying "I don't know"?

There's nothing wrong with not knowing why god creates people who are predestined to go to hell but if you don't know just say so.

sensibleken

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I understand it: John 3:16 can be taken as meaning "For God doesn't so love the world that he gave his only Son. Rather, he so loves the elect (those who he plans to save)".

sorry to weigh in and i realise that this is off topic but would this not contradict the idea propegated by christians that god loves everyone?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Isn't that another way of saying "god works in mysterious ways", which is in itself another way of saying "I don't know"?

There's nothing wrong with not knowing why god creates people who are predestined to go to hell but if you don't know just say so.

I don't think the Calvinist would have a problem with saying he doesn't know why God chooses this one to be saved and not that one. For all he knows God uses a dice.

As to why God would make some destined for damnation? Well, the reason posed by Calvinists is, essentially, that it pleases God to do so and is in line with his character and who are we to question God (which is reasonable enough thing to say). God is God afterall.

It's reasonable in a sense - it just doesn't gel with any reason for doing things that we're able to get our heads around. Mystery thus.

antiskeptic

sensibleken wrote: »

sorry to weigh in and i realise that this is off topic but would this not contradict the idea propegated by christians that god loves everyone?

Offtopix-R-Us

It would certainly appear to. It's a Calvinist view - which is but one branch of Christianity.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure. Roman Catholicism propagates a lie concerning the manner in which man is to be reconciled to God. Because of this, many, many people are fooled into thinking that because they had water poured over their heads as infants, it means that they are somehow potentially reconciled to God (if it only be that they conform to further ordinances posited by that same church).

Although that lie is close to the truth is many ways (salvation is through Christ, a man needs to baptised into Christ, there is forgiveness for sin, etc., etc.) it is close in the sense that jumping a 1000 metre wide canyon is almost achieved by a 990 metre leap.

Satan is the father of lies and the one who stands behind mankinds propagating lies. And so, Roman Catholicism can be said to be a puppet of Satan in that Satan is the ultimate string puller. This is not to say that a Roman Catholic can't be saved - he can of couse be just like the Buddhist or the Muslim. But it will be in spite of the lie - not because of it - that salvation will occur if it occurs.

That is not really answering the question. It is your interpretation of the lie you believe.

What is in that 10m gap that you believe to be a lie?

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is not really answering the question. It is your interpretation of the lie you believe.

I was expanding on my earlier comments as asked. I'd grant that I 'interpret' core Roman Catholic teaching to be a lie.

What is in that 10m gap that you believe to be a lie?

The illustration attempted to convey the idea that no matter how much truth is woven up in a lie (whatever the lie may be), a lie remains a lie. That is to say: 1000 metres of truth is very similar to 990 metres of truth and 10 metres of lie. In the same way that 95% of human DNA is very close to 100% human DNA (even though 95% human DNA makes a chimpanzee)

What's in the 10m gap is a failure to complete the jump. Which means damnation.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think the Calvinist would have a problem with saying he doesn't know why God chooses this one to be saved and not that one. For all he knows God uses a dice.

As to why God would make some destined for damnation? Well, the reason posed by Calvinists is, essentially, that it pleases God to do so and is in line with his character and who are we to question God (which is reasonable enough thing to say). God is God afterall.

It's reasonable in a sense - it just doesn't gel with any reason for doing things that we're able to get our heads around. Mystery thus.

So just to be clear they're essentially saying "this aspect of god's behaviour doesn't make any sense to us but he's an unquestionable authority figure so there must be some reason that we don't know about and we have no right to ask why god creates billions of people who are predestined to hell before they're even born". Basically, we don't know and we have no right to ask. Is that correct?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So just to be clear they're essentially saying "this aspect of god's behaviour doesn't make any sense to us but he's an unquestionable authority figure so there must be some reason that we don't know about and we have no right to ask why god creates billions of people who are predestined to hell before they're even born". Basically, we don't know and we have no right to ask. Is that correct?

I gather that's the core position. It makes sense only insofar as it is a priori accepted that whatever God does makes sense.

If creating folk who are certain to be damned without any hope of being saved suits God's purposes then that's fine by the Calvinist. It is rationalised in the following way though: man is said to deserve his being damned (even though he's essentially like a mouse-catching cat in that he has a depraved nature capable only of rejecting God.)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather that's the core position. It makes sense only insofar as it is a priori accepted that whatever God does makes sense.

If creating folk who are certain to be damned without any hope of being saved suits God's purposes then that's fine by the Calvinist. It is rationalised in the following way though: man is said to deserve his being damned (even though he's essentially like a mouse-catching cat in that he has a depraved nature capable only of rejecting God.)

Yourself and Wolfsbane seem so confident of your positions but once we acknowledge that there is no requirement on God to make any sense whatsoever how can we possibly say anything about this being with any level of confidence? Maybe god isn't loving at all and he decided the bible would say he was loving for some unknown reason. Maybe he decided to say that those who believe in christianity are saved, again for some unknown reason, while in fact muslims or scientologists or those who don't believe in the supernatural at all are saved (and the introduction of the supernatural was a test of rational thinking or some unknown test that we have no right to ask to understand). Maybe no one is saved at all, maybe we're nothing more than ants in an ant hill to him and the whole concept of salvation is just a game for his own amusement or again, done for some unknown reason. This goes for all those personal experiences that people have too, how can we say what the purpose of these experiences is if god's actions do not have to make any sense to us?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yourself and Wolfsbane seem so confident of your positions but once we acknowledge that there is no requirement on God to make any sense whatsoever how can we possibly say anything about this being with any level of confidence?

I didn't say I shared Wolfbanes position. I think there are other positions that make far more sense (of a type we can appreciate and understand). I'm inclined, not unnaturally, to suppose my own position as making the most of that kind of sense of all. Which is not to say that I too don't arrive at the point where I say "it's mysterious". I do arrive at those fences - but just not as early in the race as Calvinism.

Maybe god isn't loving at all and he decided the bible would say he was loving for some unknown reason. Maybe he decided to say that those who believe in christianity are saved, again for some unknown reason, while in fact muslims or scientologists or those who don't believe in the supernatural at all are saved (and the introduction of the supernatural was a test of rational thinking or some unknown test that we have no right to ask to understand). Maybe no one is saved at all, maybe we're nothing more than ants in an ant hill to him and the whole concept of salvation is just a game for his own amusement or again, done for some unknown reason. This goes for all those personal experiences that people have too, how can we say what the purpose of these experiences is if god's actions do not have to make any sense to us?

Maybe. All we can do is see how sturdy our structure can be built on sense we can understand and with scriptural views that are internally consistant. In so far as I believe God reveals himself in the Bible, I think he makes an awful lot more apprehendible sense than the Calvinist position permits.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was expanding on my earlier comments as asked. I'd grant that I 'interpret' core Roman Catholic teaching to be a lie.

Well, we need to know where the Truth lies and which Church is closest to the Truth so we can all join and give ourselves the best chance of redemption and salvation.

tbh any Church that is prepared to describe it's brothers and sisters in Christ as Satanist or a Satanic puppet really ought to examine if it is being truly Christian.

Take 1 Timothy 4:3 which is sometimes used to point out the errors of Catholicism. This could be interpreted as being actually meant for vegetarians as they refuse to eat the food that God has provided. It can also be interpreted as being meant for the fornicators and its advocates as it appears to be describing those who are "forbidding" marriage i.e. considering it not necessary and those who heed them. There is nothing in this passage to describe periodic and occasional fasting or celibacy as being in error. Indeed there are other passages by other Saints that describe there being a benefit to celibacy and marriage and occasional fasting.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The illustration attempted to convey the idea that no matter how much truth is woven up in a lie (whatever the lie may be), a lie remains a lie. That is to say: 1000 metres of truth is very similar to 990 metres of truth and 10 metres of lie. In the same way that 95% of human DNA is very close to 100% human DNA (even though 95% human DNA makes a chimpanzee)

What's in the 10m gap is a failure to complete the jump. Which means damnation.

I would suggest that anyone who interprets the Gospel, or the Bible as a whole, as suggesting that some Christians are so grossly in error as to be judgemental of other Christians and suggesting they are in league with the enemy should re-examine their conscience.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, we need to know where the Truth lies and which Church is closest to the Truth so we can all join and give ourselves the best chance of redemption and salvation.

It goes without saying. Although I don't see any absolute need to adhere to the teaching of any particular church or suppose the truth will be found more in a particular church than it could be by ones own studies.

Which is not to say I recommend steering clear of a suitable church.

tbh any Church that is prepared to describe it's brothers and sisters in Christ as Satanist or a Satanic puppet really ought to examine if it is being truly Christian.

My (as opposed to a church) comments referred to Roman Catholicism - not Roman Catholics. That said; if a Roman Catholic/Protestant/whatever Christian denomination isn't a Christian then they wouldn't be my brothers/sisters in Christ. They would still be as all are born (until born again) children of Satan.

You might appreciate that if I don't see water being poured over ones head as an infant as Christian-creating, then I won't see the vast majority of Roman Catholics as probable brothers and sisters in Christ. No more than I'd suppose the teens in church down my way to be Christians simply because they come to my church.

You don't have to believe my position in order to see it a consistant one.

Take 1 Timothy 4:3 which is sometimes used to point out the errors of Catholicism. This could be interpreted as being actually meant for vegetarians as they refuse to eat the food that God has provided. It can also be interpreted as being meant for the fornicators and its advocates as it appears to be describing those who are "forbidding" marriage i.e. considering it not necessary and those who heed them. There is nothing in this passage to describe periodic and occasional fasting or celibacy as being in error. Indeed there are other passages by other Saints that describe there being a benefit to celibacy and marriage and occasional fasting.

To be honest, I think Roman Catholicism misses the point by a country mile. The issue isn't so much in the detail as it is in the global.

I would suggest that anyone who interprets the Gospel, or the Bible as a whole, as suggesting that some Christians are so grossly in error as to be judgemental of other Christians and suggesting they are in league wit the enemy should re-examine their position.

We should agree that scripture is clear about warning about wolves in sheeps clothing in Christs church - even if we might disagree about who those wolves might be. Given that there are but two sides in the spiritual realm: Gods and not-Gods, it follows that whoever is not following the godly path is a pawn of Satan or worse. Stating who it is you think are wolves in sheeps clothing isn't being judgemental, it's stating the nature of the disharmony between sheep and wolves.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

My (as opposed to a church) comments referred to Roman Catholicism - not Roman Catholics. That said; if a Roman Catholic/Protestant/whatever Christian denomination isn't a Christian then they wouldn't be my brothers/sisters in Christ. They would still be as all are born (until born again) children of Satan.

Sweeping dogmatic statement. Do you really believe we are all first born as Children of Satan until born again?
All spawn of the Nephilim, including any Satan might have spawned were destroyed in the Flood. Mans DNA is all human.

As for semantic arguments over R.Catholicism and R.Catholics - that's a bit like some arguments saying there is a difference between atheism and an atheist. Attack the -ism and not the -ist.
If this was 1940 and destroying Fascism meant having to kill Fascists I think I would be in support of killing the Fascists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to believe my position in order to see it a consistant one.

Consistent with what? Your position is offensive to say the least and gives me grounds to worry for your spiritual health.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We should agree that scripture is clear about warning about wolves in sheeps clothing in Christs church - even if we might disagree about who those wolves might be. Given that there are but two sides in the spiritual realm: Gods and not-Gods, it follows that whoever is not following the godly path is a pawn of Satan or worse. Stating who it is you think are wolves in sheeps clothing isn't being judgemental, it's stating the nature of the disharmony between sheep and wolves.

Can we not consider all Christian faiths, RCC included, as Sheep and those who oppose Christianity with vehemence e.g. militant active atheists and secularists as the wolves?
To me the wolves are the benign secular inclusive atheists who use democracy to remove God from society.

The last thing Christianity needs is sectarianism and infighting.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Sweeping dogmatic statement.

Dogmatic statements usually are sweeping

Do you really believe we are all first born as Children of Satan until born again? All spawn of the Nephilim, including any Satan might have spawned were destroyed in the Flood. Mans DNA is all human.

? The fatherhood in question is spiritual. Who's influence are you under? Which camp are you sat in? That kind of thing.

As for semantic arguments over R.Catholicism and R.Catholics - that's a bit like some arguments saying there is a difference between atheism and an atheist. Attack the -ism and not the -ist.
If this was 1940 and destroying Fascism meant having to kill Fascists I think I would be in support of killing the Fascists.

Unfortunately for your semantical argument there is a difference between Roman Catholicism and a Roman Catholic. The one is a belief system - the other a person. I don't have to 'attack' anyone to 'attack' a belief system.

Consistent with what? Your position is offensive to say the least and gives me grounds to worry for your spiritual health.

Consistant in that there is no particular issue with stating that Islam, Hinduism, Mormonisn .. and Roman Catholicism are not Christian belief systems if they teach things that run counter that what I believe Christian teachings are.

Can we not consider all Christian faiths, RCC included, as Sheep and those who oppose Christianity with vehemence e.g. militant active atheists and secularists as the wolves?

To me the wolves are the benign secular inclusive atheists who use democracy to remove God from society.

The last thing Christianity needs is sectarianism and infighting.

To be honest, I don't see that God is in society for him to be removed from it (although do see a lot of Christendoms influence being eroded which is no bad thing per se). God resides in the hearts and minds of those who are his - and they are relatively few. All the rest: religious symbolism and people (be they religious of any persuasion: Roman Catholic/Protestant/Islam/whatever.. or no) belong to Satan at present. I see no reason to turn Christianity into a political organisation in order to exert control over those who can't be expected to 'get it'.


A wolf in sheeps clothing strongly implies one who looks like a sheep (one of God's people) and baa's like a sheep (one of God's people) but who's actually a wolf. Atheists don't look like nor do they baa like sheep. In fact they look and baa quite the opposite.

I see Roman Catholicism oppose Christianity vehemently. In a way that has the outward appearance of being sheep-like. It's its fruit that shows up however: when you've a mode of salvation (works) in RC that matches the mode of salvation in all the religions you yourself would consider non-Christian (ands thus Satan-inspired) then it can't be that hard to see who it is whose behind that fruit.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Consistent with what? Your position is offensive to say the least and gives me grounds to worry for your spiritual health.

It's funny that you say that

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can we not consider all Christian faiths, RCC included, as Sheep and those who oppose Christianity with vehemence e.g. militant active atheists and secularists as the wolves?
To me the wolves are the benign secular inclusive atheists who use democracy to remove God from society.

And then you say that. Bit of pot calling the kettle offensive imo. Benign, secular Inclusive democracy is the "wolves". Wow

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say I shared Wolfbanes position.

Fair enough, if you don't share his position and think it makes little more sense than I do there's not much point in asking you to explain it

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And then you say that. Bit of pot calling the kettle offensive imo. Benign, secular Inclusive democracy is the "wolves". Wow

From a Christian perspective (in which there are but two camps to which you can belong: God's or Satan's) a "benign atheist" sounds like a bit of an oxymoron. Just like "benign divebomber" (no offence intended) would sound to a allied soldier in a trench.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

From a Christian perspective (in which there are but two camps to which you can belong: God's or Satan's) a "benign atheist" sounds like a bit of an oxymoron. Just like "benign divebomber" (no offence intended) would sound to a allied soldier in a trench.

And from a non-religious persepctive that is one of the most terrifying things about religion and the most powerful motivation to oppose it

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I see Roman Catholicism oppose Christianity vehemently. In a way that has the outward appearance of being sheep-like. It's its fruit that shows up however: when you've a mode of salvation (works) in RC that matches the mode of salvation in all the religions you yourself would consider non-Christian (ands thus Satan-inspired) then it can't be that hard to see who it is whose behind that fruit.

If this is your belief should you not be trying to lead those in error to the truth?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And from a non-religious persepctive that is one of the most terrifying things about religion and the most powerful motivation to oppose it

Given my stated position: that atheism and much of Religion are actually serving the same master, I don't envy you your task.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

If this is your belief should you not be trying to lead those in error to the truth?

That I try to do. Many people who visit this forum have the impression that Christianity is accurately represented by Roman Catholicism - which isn't surprising given the Irish context. I'm often flabbergasted however by the ignorance demonstrated by those who say they hate God and Christianity (I asked someone once what they understood the gospel to be and they replied "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John".)

And so I spend time pointing out the ways in which Christianity differs from the Roman Catholicism they are familiar with*

("I understand that you might take offence with my calling Roman Catholicism and Christianity two completely separate things - given that you, as a Roman Catholic consider RC Christianity. Try to remember though that I'm stating things from my perspective only)

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

From a Christian perspective (in which there are but two camps to which you can belong: God's or Satan's) a "benign atheist" sounds like a bit of an oxymoron. Just like "benign divebomber" (no offence intended) would sound to a allied soldier in a trench.

It is an oxymoron.

To me a benign atheist is one who considers their atheism to be a personal matter and keeps it that way.
All other atheists are about as benign as a loaded divebomber. But hey, that's just my opinion man.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is an oxymoron.

To me a benign atheist is one who considers their atheism to be a personal matter and keeps it that way.
All other atheists are about as benign as a loaded divebomber. But hey, that's just my opinion man.

Perhaps we can agree that the benign types are cooks and quartermasters in Satans army .. and the more militaristic types are frontline troops.

That said, scratch the surface of a benign atheist and you'll reveal the God-hatred underneath pretty darn quickly.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps we can agree that the benign types are cooks and quartermasters in Satans army .. and the more militaristic types are frontline troops.

That said, scratch the surface of a benign atheist and you'll reveal the God-hatred underneath pretty darn quickly.

Considering atheists don't believe Satan exists, this is really pretty amusing.

Continuing with your analogy, it's like saying Quaker conscientious objectors in the second world war were Hitler's cooks and quartermasters.

I think you'll find lots of atheists on these boards are also anti-theist, but your suggestion that they are Satan's quartermasters is frankly hilarious to me. Oh but I would say that! Unknowingly being in Satan's army and all.