An atheist who is not so keen on God

Rrhain says to Jar; No he didn't. He's saying that they do it unwittingly for God. S/he can do this with their will. If they have position A (atheism), then they do a good act of their own free and atheist will. This is loving God without them knowing. That's why the scripture says that they ask to God "when did I help you God"....(similar words).I think you've attacked Jar because of your own misconstrued conclusions as to what he is saying. Basically he's acted very nice - and you've acted very not-nice. Even when he just ignored you and said "lol", you continued to badger him. This just shows that you are argumentative.Rrhain, no one doubts your logical knowledge or anything, but more essentially, Jar just wasn't trying to fool anyone, and his words were understood. Re-read the thread.

The atheist is loving God by doing good works. It doesn't matter if the atheist does this unwittingly. I'm not saying that if you love then that IS God, I'm saying that to love is TO love God, via good works unwittingly for the unbeliever. But the circular would be moot anyway, because logic doesn't constrain God, nor is he under this method of man's arrogance. If you do ANY good then this is ONLY possible because of God - whom is love, and through whom flows all of the created things. Thereby, even logically - all pathways lead back to God(A), which is love's only source. But if I give to the poor, then that's an intended and good action.If you donate your lungs willy nilly, to any hospital to give up to someone in need, and your lungs go to God, then you have helped God breathe whether you like it or not. God has said that to love the least is to love him. So if you love the least, you have given your lungs to God. I can't prove it. We believe this from scripture. But what matters is that if you give yur lungs to a baba then you HAVE give them to God, and he's using them whether you like it or not.----Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you a logical question.If A is the only cause of B,(or only A leads to B) then isn't the inverse and converse also correct?A is B.If only pies cause tastiness, then does tastiness = pies?And no pies = no tastiness?Let's pretend that there is only one Rrhain on earth.you are Rrhain. Rrhian is you. No you = no Rrhain. No Rrhain = no you.God is love. A is B. (Only God is love and he is Gos so only he causes it).God is the source of all things, and only he is love. Therefore if you feel love then that's God. And so B=A is true. Isn't this how man's knowledge is overcome? Apparently - logic only allows A = B, and not B = A. So;I am mike the wiz. mike the wiz is I.No I, then no mike the wiz.Now surely only God is love. And can you - a man, overcome him with logic? Or has he just overcame you?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 07:01 AM

That's fair enough Jar. I didn't mean to mis-represent you.However, personally I believe 1 John 4.8(if memory serves correct). Which states clearly "For God is love".I also don't think belief in other gods is the correct endeavour according to the bible. Because the OT states (Deutereonomy - can't remember chapter)that idols are made by men, but the Lord God made the heavens and the earth. Also Isaiah, which states that there is only the Lord God, and none else beside him.

Jar, the bible says that God is love. It's what the scripture says, that I say.