What is the difference between the following groups named in the following passages:

1. Atheist
2. Infidel
3. Idolater
4. Blasphemer
5. Skeptic
6. Unbeliever
7. Universalist


You also asked, "If one knows and sees Jesus personally as a representation of God, could they believe God would torture people, thereby justifying their view of His non-existence?" Tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes the truth.

The passage doesn't tell what the difference is, but by listing them separate, indicates there is a difference.

Saying that someone doesn't know if there is a God or not is different than someone who knows there is a God and hates Him.

If one believes a lie about Jesus' representation of God, would you say they know and see Jesus personally?

There are people who have sincerely weighed the evidence and have chosen to "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong." When such people work alongside the best of believers to help feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy what is the origin and source of their good works? Ellen wrote, "A selfish heart may perform generous actions." {SC 58.1}

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as an atheist? How do you define an atheist? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Ellen wrote, "Another class Satan leads on still further, even to deny the existence of God. They can see no consistency in the character of the God of the Bible, if He will torment with horrible tortures a portion of the human family to all eternity. Therefore they deny the Bible and its Author, and regard death as an eternal sleep. {BEcho, August 10, 1896 par. 8}


Yes.


You wrote, "we all have sinful natures, and because of this, we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to do good." Does this include unbelievers? That is, is the origin and source of their good works (i.e. feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy) identical to that of believers performing the exact same good works?

I've asked you several times about Romans 1, but don't recall getting a response. The text says:

1.All are without excuse.
2.They are without excuse because that which may be know of God has been manifest to them.
3.Because God Himself manifest it to them.
4.They should give thanks to God.

Now if God Himself has manifest Himself to all, so they are without excuse, I don't see how this corresponds with the concept of not knowing that God exists. Would you explain this please?



Why? The reverse seems to be the case to me. That is, seeing Jesus Christ would be the most positive evidence of God's existence, especially with the Holy Spirit's influence.



Yes. It is not only believers that have sinful natures. Unbelievers also have sinful natures. Our natures do not become sinful when we become a believer.



If any person does anything good, then they have been influence by God. As Jesus said, "there is no one good but God alone." Whenever good is done, God is involved. Also whenever evil is done, Satan is involved (not necessarily personally, but he is the author of sin and all its results).

Yes, everyone has at one point believed in God. They are without excuse. However, sometime thereafter they talked themselves out of it. Now they "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong." {RH, May 4, 1886 par. 4}


The day Jesus died on the cross only the thief on the cross and one Roman soldier believed Jesus was the Son of God.


I assume you meant to say, "Our natures do not become sinless when we become a believer." I agree.


I don't understand how your answer addresses my question. Are you saying the origin and source of the good works named above is identical for believers and unbelievers? By unbelievers I have in mind people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong."

Even Satan helps people in order to further his plans. He does some good in order to do more evil. The end justifies the means. Ellen wrote:


Ellen also wrote, "A selfish heart may perform generous actions." {SC 58.1}

Saying that someone doesn't know if there is a God or not is different than someone who knows there is a God and hates Him.

And saying they believe Jesus was the Son of God is not the same as saying He exists. Do you suggest the others thought He didn't exist?

Kland, rejecting the messianic claims of Jesus and denying the existence of God is entirely possible then and now.

Ah, I misread it. You are separating Jesus and God. Some atheists say, show me God and I'll believe. Which they know can't be done, but it wouldn't make any difference anyway. They also say Jesus was a good man, but ignore the idea of "good" being a fraud as He claiming to be God.

This doesn't work. Here's Romans 1:



If what you were saying were true, then they wouldn't be without excuse. Their not being without excuse consists of:

1.Knowing what can be known of God because God has manifested it to them.
2.In spite of this, not glorifying God, nor being thankful to Him.

This doesn't allow for the idea that "at one point" they knew about God.

Also, just from a logical standpoint, it doesn't work. If you know what can be known of God because He has manifested it to you, that's not the sort of thing you can forget. You continue to know that. But you can still deny it. And this agrees with the SOP quote. They deny something that they know, which is why they are without excuse.



But this doesn't address your claim. You're claim had to do with God's existence. Specifically, your claim is that one could know Jesus Christ personally, and yet conclude that God did not exist. Where is there evidence of this? Also, why would you think such a thing would be the case? Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. What better evidence of the existence of God could there be than this? (i.e., actually having God standing in front of you, with the Holy Spirit revealing to you the import of what you're seeing).



No, I meant sinful. You asked if having sinful natures includes unbelievers. The only way your question could be answered "yes" would be if unbelievers have sinless natures, but become sinful when they believe.



You asked if the origin and source of good deeds is the same for unbelievers and believers. I answered that if anyone does anything good, then God is involved. That answers the question you asked.



Satan doesn't do any good. He doesn't actually heal anyone, but stops doing some of the evil he was doing to them. That's not the same as doing good. The quote you cited speaks of all sorts of evil things Satan does.



Actions which appear to be generous to others, is the intent. A selfish heart brings forth selfish actions. James explains this:



EGW was not saying that an evil person can do good things without the involvement of God, which seems to be your interpretation of the phrase that a selfish heart can produce generous actions.

If you read what she said in context, it agrees with what I've been saying:



Notice, "affection in an outward manner." The whole paragraph is speaking of appearance. A person, without being converted, may *appear* to be a certain way. But this is an appearance, not reality, because of "being destitute of the principles of pure love." Also "the actions that flow from such a heart may be destitute of the savor of life." Such actions are not good, unless you conceive of good as being in harmony with being "destitute of the savor of life."