 |
| Google+:Happy Easter |
 |
| Not sure, but this photo of a perhaps slightly attractive alien, but only slightly by my leanings, in his space ship might be evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial beings. It looks like he is travelling at some incredible speed perhaps? |
 |
| Facebook-Never found reincarnation convincing. For one thing, it is very difficult to learn from past lives not remembered. Sowing and reaping in life makes more sense. |
 |
| From Atheist Republic.com via Facebook |
Analysis: Human beings were not created in/with original sin (Genesis 1 and 2). Persons became sinful in thoughts, actions/acts and nature at the Biblical fall of Genesis 3. There is the Biblical story of Noah and God destroying most of humanity not due to just sinning as we all do, (other than Christ when he lived) in this realm, but due to human wickedness and evil being continual as in constant (Genesis 6: 5).
With my Reformed view I reason that God willed the fall as the first cause, but I also view the fall as not a work of force or coercion upon humanity. Adam and Eve with significant and yet limited free will, did freely choose to disobey God. They were perfectly moral but were immature and inexperienced, which was important within their nature that made the fall possible and actual. As the secondary causes of the fall, disobedience to God by humanity would be viewed as sinful.
But how is God not be tagged as sinful as well? The theology and philosophy being that God as author of life is infinitely and eternally holy and perfectly good. If life and death were infinite and eternal to God, and God prior to the creation of finite matter, God would be a contradictory being. Therefore God is reasoned to be holy and perfectly good. He is called holy in Scripture as in Isaiah, Leviticus and 1 Peter 1: 16. His holiness and perfection also represented in the atoning work of Christ and the future resurrection of perfect persons. There is also in Revelation the documented future restored Universe.
These views are not going to suit hardcore atheists, but are at least internally consistent when researched.
True, many people are not going to be part of the restored Kingdom because they are not part of God's plans, as in not elected (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8), but this is not done in force or coercion. Romans 5 mentions that persons, outside of justification through Christ are enemies of God and this is done with what I view as limited (human) free will. Yes, there is the doctrine of the virgin birth and incarnation and yes the crucifixion willed by God with good motives; in contrast to Romans, Jews and satanic forces, sinful motives. The atonement and resurrection of Christ covers the elect in Christ.
God does show love to humanity, especially those in Christ (Gospel of John).
Controversial yes, especially for a radical atheist, but we are dealing with different worldviews.
Personally, having studied atheistic approaches to theodicy and the problem of evil in secular United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD theses, I view academic, scholarly critiques from atheists and critics as at times helpful. As noted on my blogs, Dr. Russell Norman Murray, especially.
However, the less scholarly 'rock throwing' approach, although it at times has elements of truth is not of serious intellectual value.
Either way, I do not take atheism seriously as a potential alternative to Christianity, largely because of issues such as first cause which I think is not adequately dealt with via views of chance or via finite matter as cause alone. I deny that naturalism and empiricism answer all needed key issues in regard to origins. If the Biblical Scripture was even/ever invalidated, and I see no good evidence for that, I would lean toward deism, not atheism.
