God caused Katrina because of sin

[Ironslave]

.... from a McCain endorser, I know religious debates are always heated, but interesting, so I'd be curious to hear Ben's, and especially Serb's thoughts.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/77wBur1NhxU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/77wBur1NhxU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[lifterdead]

Interesting topic, good point for discussion. I'd like to hear from Serb and Ben as well.




And no, I'm not looking to pick a fight and bash religion. I just like to debate!

 

[Ironslave]

And no, I'm not looking to pick a fight and bash religion. I just like to debate!

Same, I have problems with blindly following the typical Christian doctrine (or any other religion, really) and regurgitating what is laid out, for example, this video.

 

[SerbMarko]

first off John Hagee is a moron.. he says that all Jews are going to heaven because they are chosen, yet the bible is clear that not all jews are of Israel.. hes a heretic.. as far as natural disasters being an act of God.. of course.. but as far as God punishing them for their sins.. false.. the bible is clear on this issue.. in these days God is withholding his judgment until we face him once we pass away from this body.. God does not make one sin out to be greater then the other..

 

[Tech]

Hurricane Katrina didn't kill all those people and destroy all those homes.....the flooding did. And why did everything flood? because the levees were old and busted.

The world would be a much better place if "god" created a big hurricane and killed all his followers. That way they could all be by his side in heaven and all of us hedonistic atheists could have the earth for ourselves.

 

[Robcardu]

Its our fault, call it pollution, greenhouse effect or whatever, i think its always our fault, all those disasters are used to manipulate ppl into believing if you dont go to church God will get mad and stuff, its just stupid.

 

[BigBen]

.... from a McCain endorser, I know religious debates are always heated, but interesting, so I'd be curious to hear Ben's, and especially Serb's thoughts.

Yea i saw this a few weeks back. My honest opinion is that this gentleman preeches to much from the old testimate. I believe in the final and perfect convenant that God made with man, and that is with Jesus Christ. Christians are suppose to help others and NEVER NEVER NEVER judge. If u do not judge then u will not be judged. As a Christian, and mabye he is not a christian mabye he is Jewish, that man should not be condemning anybody. He should also not believe the garbage that comes out of his own mouth. I DO NOT believe that God causes natural disasters to punish anybody. I do believe that we are judged when we die. I do believe that the fate of man kind is his own to decide. To say that God caused katrina is redicilous. That is nature! Now as a Christian i can see Gods beauty in nature but do i think that God takes revenge on people? No.

Revenge is a negative trait. Revenge is evil. God is not evil. therefore God is not vengeful.

My beliefs are all based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. I view the old testimate as a history book, and the only "rules" i go by as far as my faith is concerned are the guidelines Jesus Christ laid down during his ministry.

That man does not speak for me, and he does not represent the Christian faith of Jesus Christ. He seems to be into propaganda, and scaring people into believing.

I put my faith in God but that does not mean i dont try 110% and set goals.

Nice post IS. i was actually thinking about commenting about this guy but never got around to it bro.

God bless
Ben

 

[SerbMarko]

this so called preacher also claims that ALL Jews will go to heaven even if they dont believe in CHRIST.. what a heretic..

 

[BigBen]

this so called preacher also claims that ALL Jews will go to heaven even if they dont believe in CHRIST.. what a heretic..

The only way to the father is through the son.

 

[Ironslave]

... so, are all Jews from Israel going to heaven?

Even the ones who are invading/occupying Palestine?

 

[SerbMarko]

... so, are all Jews from Israel going to heaven?

Even the ones who are invading/occupying Palestine?

no one gets into heaven unless its through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.. Jew or Gentile, they are all the same.. when the bible says "Israel" it means "chosen" being born a jew does not make one of "Israel" with that said, if it were not for those jews that rejected Christ, no gentile would ever have a chance at salvation.

refer to the book of Galatians in the new testament.

 

[lifterdead]

My beliefs are all based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. I view the old testimate as a history book, and the only "rules" i go by as far as my faith is concerned are the guidelines Jesus Christ laid down during his ministry.

If this is the case, then you're technically not a "Christian." I whole-heartedly agree the teachings of Jesus are much better than the moral standards presented in the Old Testament. If you're only basing your morals off the figure of Jesus, however, that's not the same as believing in Jesus as the living incarnation of a God. Why not base morals off Gandhi or Martin Luther King instead?

The whole concept of Jesus as a living God is based off Old Testament theology. Ignoring the doctrine invalidates the premise, so to speak.
It would be similiar to saying, "I'm a member of the KKK, but I don't hate black people."

(at least in principal)



Not that I have a problem with your moral principals if they're based off Jesus. They're good guidelines to have, even if I think you reached them by mistake.

 

[SerbMarko]

If this is the case, then you're technically not a "Christian." I whole-heartedly agree the teachings of Jesus are much better than the moral standards presented in the Old Testament. If you're only basing your morals off the figure of Jesus, however, that's not the same as believing in Jesus as the living incarnation of a God. Why not base morals off Gandhi or Martin Luther King instead?

The whole concept of Jesus as a living God is based off Old Testament theology. Ignoring the doctrine invalidates the premise, so to speak.
It would be similiar to saying, "I'm a member of the KKK, but I don't hate black people."

(at least in principal)



Not that I have a problem with your moral principals if they're based off Jesus. They're good guidelines to have, even if I think you reached them by mistake.

wow great post!!

 

[Napol3onator]

Didn't watch the video, but as a Southern Baptist, I believe the same EXACT thing Ben does. Why would God(not god) be the cause of Katrina? This is nature, folks. It's just like all of those idiots blaming 911 on God..just insane. Go read the Bible, and you will never want to put it down, not because of the "emotional fussines" you get from reading it, but because it is the truth, and you "will"get conviction. I hope all of you guys eventually get saved. I'm not smart enough to witness to y'all, which is very frustrating, but I can say that faith is the only way I know the truth.

 

[Flex]

So disrespectful.

Not only is their homes destroyed, and family killed, but they are told they deserved it. It's absurd that someone would even take opinions from someone this ignorant.

 

[SerbMarko]

Phil C and BigBen,

I must say, Iam quite in SHOCK to see what you guys are posting.. to say that a "SOVEREIGN" God is not in control of all things is just ABSURD!!! are you trying to say that there is another force that is greater then God? your certainly implying that there is!!!

lets go back to some basic biblical principals!

We see this in many Scriptures. Ephesians 1:11 says "we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will..." First, notice that God works, or in other words "brings about," all things. Everything is brought about by God. Second, notice that God does this according to His own plan, "the counsel of His will." This plan was not governed by anything external to his own will. It is "the counsel of His will." Thus, "God both chooses what will happen and also works it out according to his plan."[2]

In Romans 11:36 we read "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Thus, all things have their source in God's eternal decrees, all things are brought to pass by God's almighty power, and all things have as their ultimate goal God's glory. In Proverbs 21:1 we read "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes." Daniel 4:35 says "And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, `What hast Thou done?'"[3]

Since God controls all things, this means that evil is also under the control of God. We see this explicitly in many verses. Psalm 105:25, speaking of the Egyptians in the time period of the Exodus, says that God "turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants." In Isaiah 10:5-15 we read of how God used the wicked nation of Assyria to carry out his judgements upon Israel. In Deuteronomy 2:30 we read "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today." The crucifixion of Christ, which was the most sinful human act in all of history, was said to have been according to "the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" even though it was "by the hands of godless men" that Christ was put to death (Acts 2:23; see also 4:28).[4]

The sovereignty of God over all things, including evil, is important for many reasons. This truth gives us peace of mind and security in a hostile world, for we know that our good God is sovereign over it all and is working for good. When bad things come to us through the sins of others, we can take comfort that God is working it all for our good. This truth also gives us wonder and awe as we marvel at how God can even use His enemies to accomplish His plans.

Understandably, however, for many people it is hard to be comfortable with this truth because of a pressing question: If God brings about all things, good and evil, why is he not the author of sin? As we saw in the Westminister confession of faith, and as we know from the Bible, a proper view of God's sovereignty believes both that God brings about all things, yet He is not the author of sin. How can this be?

What is meant by "author of sin"?
We will come a long way to solving this difficulty if we understand what is meant by saying that God is not the "author of sin." It means at least five things:

1. God never commits sin.
2. God is not the positive cause of sin.
3. God cannot be blamed for sin.
4. God does not approve of sin. He hates it and justly punishes it.
5. God does not ordain sin for its own sake.

God never sins
The first thing we mean when we say "God is not the author of sin" is that God never commits sin. "I will proclaim the name of the Lord. Oh, praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he" (Deuteronomy 32:3-4, NIV). "There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!" (Romans 9:14).

Thus, an important distinction that we must make is that ordaining sin is not the same as doing sin. It would be entirely false, when speaking of God, to equate ordaining sin with committing sin. God ordains sin without committing sin Himself. Gordon Clark gives some helpful illustrations at this point: "....it should be evident that God no more commits sin than he is writing these words. Although the betrayal of Christ was foreordained from eternity as a means of effecting the atonement, it was Judas, not God, who betrayed Christ. The secondary causes in history are not eliminated by divine causality, but rather they are made certain."[5]

God is not the positive cause of sin
God is behind good and evil in different ways. From the verses we saw above, it is clear that God is the cause of all things. However, we must understand that God is behind evil in a different way than He is behind good. He is behind good in a way that renders Him fully deserving of all of the credit for it, but He is behind evil in such a way that He deserves none of the blame for it. D.A. Carson explains it like this: "To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to the secondary agents, to secondary causes [i.e., those who actually do it]. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents...If this sound just a bit too convenient for God, my initial response (though there is more to be said) is that according to the Bible this is the only God there is."[6]

Different kinds of causes. If we understand the differences between the ultimate cause, positive cause, and negative cause, it will help us to see why God deserves all of the credit for good, but none of the blame for evil. The ultimate cause is what brings about the event. Without this cause, the event won't happen. With this cause, the event will happen. Thus, the ultimate cause determines the outcome. But the ultimate cause can bring about the effect in different ways. It can act by means of a positive influence, which means directly influencing the object to make it act. In this case it functions as the positive cause, and would deserve credit for the action brought about. On the other hand, the ultimate cause can act by means of a negative influence, which means withholding certain influences to the extent that the desired result is brought about. In this case the ultimate cause functions as the negative cause.

With this in mind, there are two extremes to avoid. The first would be to deny that God is the ultimate cause of all things. This view would say that sin occurs apart from the plan of God, that God is not the sovereign controller of sin. This error would have to ignore many of the verses we saw above. The other extreme would be to affirm that God is the positive cause of sin. This error would be saying that sin proceeds from God and that he injects fresh evil into people's hearts to make them sin. This error would seem to say that God is the morally guilty cause of sin and would have to ignore verses such as James 1:13 "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

The correct view seems to be that God is the ultimate cause of sin, but He is not the positive cause of sin. Therefore, He cannot be blamed for sin. In other words, God causes sin by withholding goodness, rather than by injecting evil. God does not produce the sin in people's hearts. Rather, it proceeds from their own hearts. God simply withholds the grace that would change the hearts, and thus is the ultimate cause but not the positive, or morally guilty, cause.

Let me give an example from Jonathan Edwards. The day occurs because the sun produces its light and bathes the earth in it. The light is directly produced and given by the sun. Thus, the sun is the positive cause of the day. Now imagine that for reasons of its own, the sun suddenly transferred to another solar system. Darkness would result on the earth. The sun would not be the positive cause of the darkness, but the negative cause, because the darkness is not something that was produced by the sun and imposed upon the earth, but was rather the result of the earth being left to its own nature. Thus, the sun could not be considered the morally guilty cause of the darkness. The sun would be, however, the ultimate cause of this darkness, because its actions determined whether the earth would be light or dark. The sun could have chosen to stay, and daylight would have remained. By choosing to leave, darkness resulted.

Likewise, God is the ultimate cause of evil, but not the morally guilty cause. Evil results by His withholding the grace that would have prevented it, not by His producing sin. Thus, God gets the credit for the good because He is the positive cause of it--He directly produces the goodness in a Christian's heart that causes him to do good actions. But he gets none of the blame for sin because He does not produce sin in people's hearts, but directs it by means of negative causation.[7]

To further clarify this point, let us continue a little further. We must remember that we are all born sinful. Because of Adam's sin, we all come into the world with sinful hearts. Thus, God doesn't cause sin by taking righteous people and making them do what they don't want to. He does not inject sinful desires into people. Rather, we are already sinful. God simply leaves us to our own natures and makes use of the evil that is already there. Thus, we are responsible for our sinful actions because they proceed from our own heart. The source of sin is in the human heart, not God. What God does is divide, arrange, and direct the sin in the human heart, so that it manifests itself according to His purposes. God is sovereign over it because He arranges and shapes the form in which sin will express itself in. But we are accountable for it because it flows from our own hearts, not God. This helps us to understand the Scriptures which speak of God hardening someone's heart: God causes the heart to be hard not by injecting fresh evil into it, but by withdrawing His restraining grace so that the heart does what comes natural to it--become more rebellious.[8]

As should be clear from this paragraph, when I speak of negative causation I am not saying that God simply leaves a person to their own sinful nature, and that is all there is to it. God also directs the degree of evil in a person's heart by hardening it by means of negative causation or, if He wants to restrain evil, He softens the heart by means of positive causation. It seems that He also directs circumstances in order to insure that the sinful nature will carry out the specific sins that He has planned. For example, we read in 1 Kings 22:19-23 of God sending a deceiving spirit to "entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead." God's action in letting Ahab be deceived was not simply a "hands off" (see also 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12). But the truth of negative causation shows us that God is never the fountain, or producer, of sin. God was not the positive cause of Ahab's sin. However, negative causation, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, does not deny that God makes use of the sin that is already there or that He orchestrates the circumstances in order to direct the expression of the sinful nature.

In other words, negative causation shows that sinfulness is not in a person's heart because God produced it, but because He withheld the grace that would have eliminated the sin. But God does direct the degree of sinfulness in the heart and arrange the form in which the sin of the heart manifests itself by means of negative causation (withdrawing His restraining grace even more and thus hardening the heart), and/or by orchestrating circumstances so that the sin that He has ordained will be carried out.

Finally, the instance in first Kings also shows us the truth of "secondary causation." Simply put, God Himself is not the one who enticed Ahab to sin. Rather, God brought this about through a secondary cause--namely, the lying spirit that was sent. The fact of secondary causes makes it easier to see how God can use circumstances to bring about a sin that He has ordained, and yet not be the positive cause of that sin.

To bring this all together in greater clarity, let me offer this summary: The sin in the human heart is not produced by God. Rather, He is the negative cause of it because He is permitting it to exist when He could change it. Further, it seems that God uses negative causation and secondary causation to specifically direct the course of human sin. But God does this in such a way that He is never the positive cause of sin--that is, he is never the producer of evil in a person's heart. If a person sins or if their heart becomes more evil, it is by means of negative causation and secondary causes. Keep in mind, however, that I am not claiming to be giving--or to know--the full explanation of the way God's sovereignty over evil works.

Someone may object that, since God ultimately allowed us to fall into sin in the first place, sin is not our fault. But this objection does not work. God originally created humans morally good and blameless in Adam. Adam then sinned of His own accord. Yes, it was God's plan and He could have prevented it. Yet God cannot be blamed because He did not force Adam to sin, but withheld the grace that would have prevented it. To be sure, it was not a case of God not doing enough to make it possible for Adam to obey or that God necessarily took away grace from Adam. Rather, it seems God probably withheld the further grace that would have necessarily kept Adam from sinning. Thus, we often say that God permitted Adam to sin.

What is meant when we speak of God permitting something? This distinction between positive and negative causes shows why we sometimes speak of God as "permitting" something. When we speak of divine permission, we are not saying that God gave control of the situation over to the human will to let it do whatever it would. Rather, we are referring to the means that God used to bring about the action he had ordained. We aren't denying that God caused it, but are trying to get across the fact that God is behind good in a different way than He is behind evil. Thus, we speak of God "permitting" something. We mean that He could have prevented it, but deliberately withheld the grace that would have prevented it.

While that last statement has proved very helpful in clarifying my understanding, it is incomplete by itself. As we saw earlier, God's permission doesn't mean that he ceases being involved in the situation. God is still controlling the situation. Permission refers to the means God uses to control the situation. Thus, we must understand that God's permission is a directive permission. This means that God, by means of negative causation, is able to so arrange the situation that the option that He has ordained will necessarily occur.

We saw a glimpse at how God does this in our discussion of negative causation and secondary causes. In the book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorainne Boettner, there is an insight that will perhaps shed more light on how God uses negative causation to direct the course of sin: "Our sinful natures will always go to the boundary set by the permission of God. Hence, God's bounding of sin renders certain what and how much will come to pass. Satan could go no farther with Job than God permitted; but it is certain that he would go as far as God allowed." God's permission is like a fence that He puts around sin. He can move the fence to give sin a large area, or a small area, and sin will always go to the boundary permitted by God. Thus, God can determine what sin will do by setting its boundaries at the spots that will bring about what He has ordained. [9]

God cannot be blamed for sin.
Because of these things, it should be clear that God cannot be blamed for our sins. They are our own fault because we are the ones who do them, God is not forcing us to do them but simply making use of the evil that we are by nature, and because God is behind good and evil in different ways. He is the ultimate cause of sin, but not the morally guilty cause of it.

Another thing is that if God, as Sovereign King of the universe, has the power to control all things, surely we must also ascribe to Him the wisdom to control things in such a way that the guilt falls upon the creatures for their sins and as Moral Governor of the universe He can justly hold them accountable for their sins. In other words, God's creative, sovereign power is not simply something that brings about your choices, but is also able to establish it as your choice in such a way that responsibility lies with you and not Him.

These things, together with one more thing that we are going to examine in Part II of this article, are very helpful to my mind in showing how it is consistent that God controls sin, yet is never guilty of sin. But even if they don't fully appeal to your mind, it would still be wrong to blame God for sin. This is because Scripture rejects such a terrible conclusion. According to Scripture, it is our own fault when we sin and we are justly held responsible for them. We must accept what Scripture teaches even if we cannot fully understand how it fits together. The long and the short of it is this: we are accountable for our actions because God says we are. Since God always speaks the truth, this then it is just for Him to hold us accountable for all that we do.

God does not approve of sin. He hates it and justly punishes it.
The fourth thing it means for God to not be the author of sin is that God does not approve of sin. In other words, we should not conclude from God's sovereignty that He is pleased with sin or that it is not wrong. Habakkuk 1:13 says "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor." Luke 22:22 says "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" But why does God ordain sin if He does not approve of it? This brings us to our last point.

God does not ordain sin for its own sake
When God ordains a sinful action, it is not for the sake of the sin itself. Rather, it is for the sake of bringing about a greater good. This is important for a proper understanding of God's sovereignty: when God ordains evil it is always for the sake of bringing about a greater good.

When humans sin, we do it because we delight in the sin. Our intentions are for evil. But God does not ordain sin because He delights in it. Rather, His intentions are for good. He ordains evil because He delights in the good that He plans to bring out of it. We see this, for example, in the life of Joseph. His brothers, out of hatred, had beat him up and sold him into slavery. But many years later, when Joseph saw his brothers again, he said "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Genesis 50:20).

Let me give an example. If somebody were to, out of the blue, take a knife and cut open your stomach, they would be doing wrong. But if you are in the hospital and a doctor takes a knife and cuts you open, he has done nothing wrong. In both cases, the person is doing the same thing--cutting open your stomach. And in both cases, they are doing something that causes pain. But the first person is sinning and the doctor is not. The reason for this lies in their intentions. The first person is committing sin because He doesn't have good reason for what he is doing--he has evil intentions. But the doctor is doing good because his intentions are to save your life by removing a cancerous tumor from your stomach. It is the same way with God's control of evil. Since His purposes are for good, He is not doing anything wrong.

To expand upon the illustration, imagine that the knife the surgeon uses is "alive." The knife knows what it is doing, and has evil intentions. It takes pleasure in cutting upon your stomach, not because it wants you to be made well, but simply because it delights in causing pain. The knife's involvement in this situation would be evil. But that would not make the surgeon's involvement evil, because his intentions are still good. We would not blame the surgeon for the evil intentions of its knife. In the same way, God often uses evil people to accomplish His good purposes. But God cannot be blamed for their sin anymore than the surgeon could be blamed for the sinfulness of its knife.

This brings us to the distinction between God's moral will and His sovereign will. God's moral will is what He wants in and of itself. It is what is agreeable to His nature, and thus pleases Him. It is recorded in the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments, and we are required to obey it. Do not kill, do not lie, do not steal, etc., are all expressions of God's moral will.

God's sovereign will, on the other hand, is what He brings to pass in history. It is what He wants to occur, all things considered. God's moral will only involves good things, whereas God's sovereign will includes evil as part of His plan. While God often allows His moral will to be resisted, His sovereign will cannot be resisted. It is always accomplished.

Perhaps the best example is the crucifixion of Christ. God's moral will says "Do not kill." Yet, the crucifixion could not occur without sinful people violating this command and murdering the innocent Son of God. As we saw earlier, the crucifixion had been ordained by God from all eternity. Thus, God's moral will was "do not kill," but his sovereign will was that they would crucify Christ.

John Piper gives a helpful illustration here. God has the capacity to look at any event through two lenses, a wide angle lens and a narrow angle lens. When God looks at an evil act through the narrow lens, He sees it for what it is in itself and abhors it. This is His moral will. But when God steps back and looks at that event in the wide angle lens, He sees it in relation to all the events flowing up to it and flowing out from it. He sees it in relation to the good that He plans to bring out of it and its overall place in His wise plan. This is His sovereign will. It is in this sense that He wants it to occur and thus ordains it.

Thus, while evil is bad, it is a good thing that God ordains it to occur. As Jonathan Edwards wrote, "Evil is an evil thing, and yet it may be a good thing that evil should be in the world...as for instance, it might be an evil thing to crucify Christ, but yet it was a good thing that the crucifying of Christ came to pass. As men's act, it was evil, but as God ordered it, it was good."[10]

Conclusion
Having seen what is meant by the phrases "ordain" and "author of sin," we should now have a more accurate understanding of God's sovereignty. Further, our examination of this truth has also shown that it is logically consistent to affirm that God sovereignly controls all things, yet is not the author of sin. I do not claim to have said everything that could be said, nor do I deny that many things that would help us understand the issue more are not in our grasp while we are on earth. But I propose these insights for the sake of promoting greater understanding, consistency, and thought on this issue. Finally, we must remember that the goal of this article is not to cause an unbalanced focus on this issue, but to clear away obstacles and possible misunderstandings so that people who have problems accepting the sovereignty of God over evil will come to accept it, and that people who do believe it can have a more accurate understanding. The end of this all is that God be glorified as we apply the great truths of His sovereignty

 

[Skeptic]

^^ i am so not reading all of that

i read the start though... Serb, i dont necessarily believe in god... but i think what bigben meant was that God created nature to take care of itself.

 

[SerbMarko]

^^ i am so not reading all of that

i read the start though... Serb, i dont necessarily believe in god... but i think what bigben meant was that God created nature to take care of itself.

thats cool and dandy.. but nothing takes care of itself..

 

[Zigurd]

Hey Serb, if I don`t believe in God, but lead a great life in which I help others, and actually turn out to be a better person than your average theist, will I be banished from heaven ?

 

[Flex]

Hey Serb, if I don`t believe in God, but lead a great life in which I help others, and actually turn out to be a better person than your average theist, will I be banished from heaven ?

Is that a serious question?