Atheists

[artsylady]

Yep, that's what makes it a 'battle of the anecdotes.'

I think it's possible there is some greater power, but not probable. So I suppose I might get pidgeon-holed as a "soft atheist". Not that I was taking your comment personally, I just find it ... curious. Maybe a bit simplistic.

I was beginning to believe you were more of an athiest than an agnostic actually. That would have been my next question but you've already answered.

More atheist than agnostic, more agnostic than atheist, hmmm, no I consider myself more agnostic than atheist.

Can you explain this? You aren't sure but you lean towards the belief that God does not exist?

A vendetta would mean that I feel the need to get back at them for something, wouldn't it? I feel no need for this. Atheists have never done anything to me. I feel sorry for atheists actually and am here only because of love for people. I press them to really examine their motives and their hearts. I have to ask, does hard-hearted sound like an insult to you? Had you been a Christian at one time?

Bad choice of words on my part. I retract it, again. I'll go with... a certain slant. I remember in a movie called "Election", Matthew Brodderick's character, a high school teacher, said that he felt sorry for another character. And then later in the movie, the other character said she felt sorry for him. That sums it up quite nicely. Mind-bogglingly fascinating!

Yes.

"Hard-hearted" is derogatory, yes. You don't think so? It has its uses, but never in a flattering way, and across the boards, broad-brush, to everyone who believes differently? I have been Christian, or at least I desired to, strove to. But enough about me.

I would think the term hard-hearted would be derogatory only if you believe you may be hard hearted. If you know you are willing, and not 'hard-hearted' you would take no offense to the term. I brought the subject up because the Bible uses the term so often, that it's worth examining.

I don't see it as a double standard at all nor do I see it as bias. I see it as obvious. Jesus had miracles, claimed to be the son of God, was preceeded by hundreds of prophesies and more than 30 writers who all spoke of the same God and went to death willingly with reports of a ressurection and many miracles. What did Mohammed have? He came along and called Jesus a liar and taught barbarianism and killing and control, 500 years after Christ. We can delve into these more deeply if you feel the need.

Obvious to you. Probably incredibly obvious, right?

Yes.

Why don't we just debate over there? You can copy and past the post you believe was good.

I believe I had responded to every point made by the other poster but can try it again.

Why? What is there to debate? As I was careful to make clear, my point wasn't that she was correct, but simply that it was evidence that someone could have a reasonable explanation besides yours. You still seem to want to debate the points, on who is correct, but that's really entirely beside my point. Honestly, lady, I appreciate your conviction, but it seems like you're so certain of your position that you can't imagine someone disagreeing with you! Unless of course they're hard-hearted, or carry some other defect.

There was confusion to start with. You said Second Eve's rebuttal was on page 2, but I found nothing on page 2 or 3. I did find a rebuttal on page one and responded that her post later (page 3 or 4 maybe) It would just be easier to copy and paste the actual post so that it can be fully examined, rather than making vague points about it here.

Take care, I bow out of this conversation.

As you wish. You take care too.

[Richard_yaash]

There's not much to respect about an opinion not reached with honest effort.

Well said.

[caughtinside]

Back only to clarify your confusion.

I had written: artsylady, I had a look at your conspiracy thread, and I think the best response, and the one that ties in with what we're talking about here, was on page one, or maybe page two of that thread--the response by Secondeve. I don't think it will convince you that Secondeve is correct, but it does show a differing position that someone could reasonably hold. In other words, if our aim is to be open to the idea that others with differing views can be as sincere and "soft-hearted" as we are ourselves with ours, I think that response could be helpful.

I hope that helps.

[artsylady]

I responded to her post on page 3 or 4.

[psalmone]

The victim helped of the Good Samaritan would have recovered unto a whole new world maybe where he'd have to account for this strange favour, and from so unexpected a place. Any former hatred would have been completely disarmed and his whole world view would have needed to change simply to honour this peculiar event. Man doesn't know what to do with that kind of thing, so selfless,where does it come from, and requireing no return? Only Calvary explains it.

I don't know the feelings of the victim helped by the Good Samaritan. They are not recorded. But I do know two things. One, that all experienced Christians know, is that often a good deed is twisted by the recipient and even resented by them. The other is that the selfless love of God that shines through us when we help a neighbour in need is passed on with no thought of a reward.

It would be lovely to think that the victim of the Good Samaritan was grateful. He sure should have been. But like in real life, the thought that he owed everything to an enemy might have been too strong in his mind to appreciated the help he had been given.

Like you say so intuitively and accurately,'only Calvary explains it' because the love that flows through us from God without any obligation or expectation of reward is inexplicable otherwise.

If we scatter seed of this type of love, can must trust that according to the parable some may fall on good ground. I believe the parable of the sower is partially a principle that we can demand to see duely effected unto God's glory. Encouraged by this let's not grow weary in well doing.

[caughtinside]

I responded to her post on page 3 or 4.

I had written: artsylady, I had a look at your conspiracy thread, and I think the best response, and the one that ties in with what we're talking about here, was on page one, or maybe page two of that thread--the response by Secondeve. I don't think it will convince you that Secondeve is correct, but it does show a differing position that someone could reasonably hold In other words, if our aim is to be open to the idea that others with differing views can be as sincere and "soft-hearted" as we are ourselves with ours, I think that response could be helpful..

You know, if you would just read more carefully...

[caughtinside]

Here's a list of things that some people actually believe, but not everyone.

When we die, we are reincarnated.

Visitors from outer space built the pyramids.

Watching a man kill a bull in an arena is entertaining.

Marxism can save the world.

There were dinosaurs on the ark.

All species evolved from the same origin.

God went through a mortal test just like we are; He became an exalted being and so can we.

The number 13 is unlucky. (In Taiwan it's 4, and some buildings don't have a fourth floor.)

Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in Hell forever.

There is no god.

God promises the worthy 72 virgins in Paradise.

The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Global warming is a major threat to humanity.

Most people will think most of those are pretty wacky, but for a few of them we'll say, "Well, no, that one makes sense, because..." And we'll have a reason in mind we believe is perfectly rational. But which ones we say that for differs among us.

The bottom line is no one here holds 'wacky' beliefs. Only the other guys.

[Guest]

The bottom line is no one here holds 'wacky' beliefs. Only the other guys.

Yeap!

Wacky!

You Sure Got Me With That "There were dinosaur (Babies) on the ark" Crack

Who Could Think Such A Thing

"But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female." (Genesis 6:18-19)

Bible Believers!

The Bottom Line

My Redeemer Lives

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" (Job 19:25)

And He Walked The Earth

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

And He Rose Up From The Grave

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him." (Mark 16:2-6)

And He Is Coming Back In Power And With Judgement

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:14-15)

Does The Devil Still Got Your Tongue Or Are You Ready To Whack Your Ignorance And To Learn Of The Lord Jesus Christ And His Father

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Corinthians 4:2-5)

Ask God - Let The Holy Spirit Crush Your Pride - See The Lord Jesus And Believe And Confess - Happy Birthday!

And Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[artsylady]

When we die, we are reincarnated.

Visitors from outer space built the pyramids.

Watching a man kill a bull in an arena is entertaining.

Marxism can save the world.

There were dinosaurs on the ark.

All species evolved from the same origin.

God went through a mortal test just like we are; He became an exalted being and so can we.

The number 13 is unlucky. (In Taiwan it's 4, and some buildings don't have a fourth floor.)

Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in Hell forever.

There is no god.

God promises the worthy 72 virgins in Paradise.

The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Global warming is a major threat to humanity.

Most people will think most of those are pretty wacky, but for a few of them we'll say, "Well, no, that one makes sense, because..." And we'll have a reason in mind we believe is perfectly rational. But which ones we say that for differs among us.

The bottom line is no one here holds 'wacky' beliefs. Only the other guys.

Do you believe that the truth is out there, and that truth actually does exist as being true, or do you believe truth is relative?

Do you also ask the same questions of Muslims and Hindus etc?

[artsylady]

Caughtinside:

From A Massive Conspiracy Theory, I copied and pasted my response to Second Eve's comments. They are also bumped up on that thread too.

Anyway, yes, humans could have made up the stories.

2. There would have been no need for humans to 'orchestrate' or fake the historical parts of the Bible, such as the reign of various kings or the times of the exile - it is just as reasonable to suppose that these aspects were recorded, by and large, accurately, although given the fact that much of the OT was transcribed from oral tradition hundreds of years after the events it describes, it's no small wonder that some dates and times are confused, or that some stories have different versions or are repeated in multiple books.

The orchestration part would come in when making the hundreds of prophesies come to pass. And undefined would people, generations later, try to manipulate everything to keep the belief going?

The first writings started thousands of years BC to about 2 thousand years ago. Because of the fact that there is so much archaeological proof to support the Biblical stories, we know that some of these stories occurred. In support of your argument, okay then, the writers did write about true events but always, for thousands of years, the many writers always involved a God that didn't actually exist. Is this possible?

3. Yes. If you're saying it's impossible for humans to intertwine real history and historical events with false gods and divine occurences, then you're pretty much ignoring the early histories of (for example) Greece. Gods were recorded to have taken a prominent role in many actual events in Greek history, and kings could and did trace their lineageback to Zeus. What differentiates the Bible is that these beliefs were codified in a holy text - and while this cannot be said of the Greek pantheon and its antics, the principle of humans imposing gods over real events for thousands of years is the same. From there, it's only one small step to writing it down. And none of this is inconsistent with the archaeological aspects of the Bible being true. The fact that Delphi exists does not mean Apollo handed out prophecies there; the fact that a spring on Mount Helicon exists does not mean Pegasus created it. Or, as perhaps a better example, the fact that a political commentator can describe the relevant cities, places and protagonists in their work does not mean that, were they to throw in a few remarks about aliens, we would be obliged to trust the latter because we could confirm the former. Just because a writer is correct in one area does not mean they are accurate automatically throughout.

I'm not saying that humans don't mix real history with their gods of the time. But as I thought I had stated (maybe not) some of the archaeology still remains a mystery as to how it was purely human. Like the Sodom and Gomorrah site with sulpher balls laying around. How did they manage to do this?

What's the difference between the Bible and other books? Those other ancient books have long been passed off as fiction yet the Bible lives on in truth to millions. Those other ancient books were written by a few during a short period in history. The Bible was written spanning a long period of history. The other books don't make prophesies. The Bible does and it is it accurate on the hundreds of prophesies it's made. The Bible was written by many men from different walks of life - while the other books were written by only the intellectuals of that particular period. Surely you must recognize huge differences.

I guess but you have to ask why they would continue into the generations the writings if the God never did exist at all. Why give Him so much credit?

4. Belief. Look at other religions. The fact that Allah doesn't exist hasn't stopped any Muslims from glorifying him lately, has it? You're presupposing that people were actively inventing a God they didn't believe in, when the opposite it true: they were writing about a God they did believe in, but who didn't exist. And at least from an athiestic perspective, people who believe have a tendency to put pretty much anything which happens down to God's will, be it good or bad - whereas without God, those things could still happen. By which I mean: the fact that you wanted your army to win a battle could not only be achieved by divine intervention. Human skill could be solely responsible, and yet to someone who believes in God and who prayed for victory, the same outcome is seen as a sign of divine intervention.

I do believe that Mohammed believed in what he was writing. He was visited by an 'angel' who scared the crap right out of him and was so afraid he was literally shaking later when he met up with his wife, who convinced him that he must write down what he was told. However, once again, Mohammed was ONE man who also came on the scene very late in the game. I have no idea why Muslims give him so much creedence, especailly when he discounts and rewrites a lot of the OT AND NT scriptures, when there's clearly archaeological proof to show that the scriptures are accurate as we have them today. I don't want to get into a debate about Islam at the moment, but while you choose to make comparisons between the Bible and the Koran, you must be able to surely see the major differences.

There are over 500 peices of Biblical archaeology that support the writings. And to date, no archaeology has proven it wrong.

5. Again, the fact that someone can write about what's in front of them and get cities right doesn't mean that their other assumptions are all correct, too. Look at the above example about the battle. Imagine two historians recorded the same event: one thought it was the will of god, and the other made no mention of religion at all. If archaeological evidence proved that the battle took place when both people said it did, that isn't actually proof that historian who mentioned God was right - it just means that, regardless of whether or not there is a god, the battle took place and had a certain outcome.

I would agree with part of this. Most of the stories were recorded only in the Bible, nowhere else, and have been shown to be true. But again, you're disecting this peice by peice when there is a bigger picture. And could humans have simply written about natural events during their time while attributing parts to a god that didn't exist? Yes. You keep saying the same thing and I keep agreeing but I want you to look at the whole picture and recognize that the Bible not only so much more expansive, accurate and had many more contributors than other 'holy books' but it also contains future events which came to pass. The bigger picture is what separates it in so many drastic ways.

6. There are unfulfilled and seemingly false prophecies in the Bible. Also note that no interpretation has been agreed on for many of them, and that in more than one instance, we're only told that a prophecy was fulfilled, not given a prophecy which we can see has subsequently come true. And for those instances, really - stating (for example) that an empire will fall is hardly prophetic. It's a fact: nothing endures forever. Sooner or later, you're going to be right. Making a claim that blah enemy will be destroyed eventually is, sooner or later, going to be true. And apart from which, name me one set of non-vague prophecies in any religion, and by 'non-vague' I mean 'unable to be twisted and applied to any old event which sort of resembled the prophecy.' No. Not specific enough to seem even halfway miraculous.

For the moment, I'll take the examples of just a few of the prophesies of the coming Messiah. Born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in the line of David, born a Jew, he would be betrayed, killed and raised again in three days. Again, just a few of the many. How did the humans orchestrate this? And remember, the Jewish people had control of the books through the centuries so Christianity would obviously be something they would not accept (as also prophesied) Now, why would men conspire to bring Jesus into the picture, a false god who would himself be killed and the men who followed him most closely would be killed. Did they all die for what they knew was a lie in order to bring what they called 'truth' to the world?

And what were the 'false prophesies', that you speak of?

So while the Biblical writers, many of whom didn't know each other, spoke of the same God who loved them and wanted them to come to know Him. What kind of conspiracy theory is this? Especially knowing the prophesies concerning the Messiah wouldn't come until a thousand years later? How could humans orchestrate such a catastrophic lie spanning thousands of years and include prophesies?

7. You're ignoring belief again. Once people believe, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong: they'll perpetuate it. If they are wrong, it isn't a conspiracy theory - just a falsehood. Imagine I tell you that I have a sister. You tell ten other people, who tell their friends, too. But if I lied or was wrong myself, the fact that you're all telling a falsehood isn't a conspiracy theory. And if I never correct you, then the fact taht people 200 years later think I had a sister is hardly a great feat of deception on behalf of everyone who took me at my word - it was just that they, too, were decieved, with nobody left to unveil the deception.

Look at the apostles. Before the resurrection, they were regular humans like you are, questioning the fact that Jesus was who he said he was. They were doubtful in many instances and especially when it came to Jesus arrest. However, after the resurrection, after watching him die and become alive again, they were changed men. They willingly preached fearlessly, risking jail and eventually enduring arrest torture and death. I would never risk even a jail sentence to continue a beleif that you had a sister, yet these men risked and lost it all for their beliefs. Do you think they really must have beleived? And it's not like their leader Jesus was around to brainwash them. He left the earth just days after the ressurrection. The apostles were also witness to that event. So years later, they're still going on preaching and teaching while Christianity is made illegal and punishable by death to the lions.

Imagine I make a prophecy about someone who'll save my people, and someone comes along claiming to be that person. If I hadn't written the prophecy, would they ever have shown up? The fact of the matter is that when prophecies exist, they can seem to come true because people work to fulfill them, but that doesn't mean anyone ever saw the future.

"people work to fulfill them"?? So you do believe humans must have orchestrated some of these events.