Question for freethinkers

[diffidus]

Is personal accountability a simple line which, once crossed, indicates full readiness for the vicissitudes of life? I see it as a growing thing which evolves through experience, and I don't feel that a text can grant that experience. How can god be experienced by an unbeliever?

Ok an originating point that grows.. I'm fine with that. I'm not following where your "text can grant that experience" fits into the conversation, but perhaps I missed it from an older post. To answer your question "How can god be experienced by an unbeliever?" I would say:
Pride is definately an obstacle, the Bible talks about it at length and almost every prayer, request, please that I can find is done from humility. Some will have to see to believe (as in John 20:26-29) but some intuit with more than their 5 material senses that there is a God. Seeking to define what that is, is a good starting step to further experiences. Seeking or thirsting for knowledge of him is a step in the right direction.

@Rhythm
No I don't think that would be correct. There is a common Christian train of thought, that emotionally and intellectually new believers who have received Christ are like infants in their understanding. The Bible encourages thirsting for knowledge and developing into an adult mindset and getting nurtured from more substantial information rather than "spiritual milk". It at no time eschews one from personal accountabiliy which, for me, is a major signifier of maturity.
@Rythm (second post)- I still see a lack of sound thought that produces a source of absolute moral authority displaying a sense of moral justice that isn't as well developed as it's creations.

---

I like your analogy of your children with the scissors but you have not quite framed it correctly. Suppose you told your children not to run with scissors and then you see them running with scissors. Do you not stop them immediately to prevent them from harm. You would do it, because you could. You would not sit by idly watching and waiting for them to get hurt. Could you imagine, after the lacerating injury, sitting calmly and saying to yourself - 'well they should have known better - everything has consequences'. And that's the whole point really, namely, that if you could avert the incident, you would, independent of any blame or any percieved natural justice - it is simply this: you love your children and you will protect them from harm under any circumstances as far as you are able - so why doesn't God do the same for His children?

---

Glad you like it. If my son wanted to do whatever he liked and I bailed him out over and over he'd just learn that daddy takes care of everything for him. It's the exact opposite of teaching responsibility and the difference between right and wrong. I do love my children , but I won't protect them from all harm under any circumstance, that would be and irresponsible parent in my eyes. I see God lettting people suffer the consequences of their actions/ stupidity in the same vein.

@tackattack

I find it hard to believe that you would allow your children to die from an event that you could prevent using the rationalisation that 'everything has consequences and that they should have known better.' According to your argument, this is precisely what God has done in the case of the children of Aberfan.

Apart from being a diminishingly weak argument (I think, deep down, your intuition tells you that there is something wrong with it) I could have chosen a random natural disaster that was an 'act of God' in which innocent people have died through no fault of their own. Why should they reap consequences?

The black death in Europe killed up to 60% of the population. It killed rapists and murderers in addition to nuns, monks and the most religious people in the land - those who really had faith in God and prayed religiously were treated in the same way as the most malevolent. It appears that the loving God did not listen to their prayers or lift a finger to help - just as in the case of the children of Aberfan.

Incidently - if your going to use the 'consequences argument' in the case of Aberfan, why did the children suffer the consequences, while the coal board directors, who were ultimately responsible, suffered no consequences whatsoever?