The Atheist Test

[Fraction]

Statement: An Atheist does not believe in God.

Why?

(Please provide your answer in ten lines or less.)

I think the most common reason is the fact there is no physical or scientific evidence of God's existence or any other higher power for that matter. Does this mean that nothing out there exists? Not at all! Remember, that even though any higher power has yet to be proven with physical or scientific evidence, that they have yet to be proven non-existent as well.

 

[David777]

Hello Fraction.

Theism and atheism, both have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

What puzzles me is that these two groups are like mice on those little circular treadmills. Running and going nowhere.

"I claim this", "you cannot claim that". "Yes I can", "no you can't".
Neither group had a claim in the first place.

When all is said and done, more is said and done.

They need the revelation of Jesus Christ! The Truth! Not a claim!

 

[Christ4Ever]

Ok...sorry for not answering originally. I overlooked the question originally.

You're asking a question that touches on multi-century-old, if not multi millenium old theological debates. You know, the 5th point of Calvinism, etc: once saved / always saved? Can you lose your salvation? etc.

And to that end, I won't dare guess. If you're "in sin" on the day you die, but you've accepted Christ, where do you go? Ah...that's all above my pay grade.

I thought I was rather clear. In Grace or Not should have better defined the parameters. If the person is not in Grace then can he ever have been a believer? If not then it would be evident that they are still under the wrath of God. So would the destination for that person be Heaven or Hell? If it seems I’m trying to pin you down that is correct. Too often destination is irrelevant, or should I say relegated to some condition that has little relevance to the here and now. It’s as if the condition of sin and its consequences as being punishable by God, is left to be explained for another day, which never arrives unless it get spoken of in reference to individuals, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama Ben Laden etc. Never attributed to the average sinner like you me or minor nondescript personages unless you're in a fire and brimstone type of church.

But, if this helps: I do believe that Jesus Christ is the only gate by which one must enter in order to be saved. But even then, Matthew 7:21 adds a little ambiguity to even that: we don't simply get into Heaven by proclaiming the name of Jesus, right? You apparently have to do the will of the Father!

We all fall short. I do not dare even guess the eternal destiny of most human-beings. Again, that's far above my pay grade.

Guess? Couldn’t one make an educated guess as I’ve stated before? Stalin who is said to have cursed God with his dying breath..... Hummm willing to make an educated guess on him? Judas? How about Herod of Jesus’ of the time of His birth? Maybe? I hope you see what I’m getting at. It has never been the level of sin as assigned by some churches, but sin period that seals ones faith .John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. Doesn’t state any particular sin, just “sin”! The believer has the consolation of knowing that they are covered by the Blood of Jesus’ death. This covers all who believe! Do you think when God looks at us that He sees us as we are or the part of us that has Jesus in us, permeating out very souls? John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Awesome thought wouldn’t you say? The lines can be delineated to those who do not know Our Lord as Savior and King! It doesn’t have to be conjecture. The reason this is so, is because you can ask them. You’ve seen the atheist come to this site. Ask one if they believe. If they say no, unless they get covered by the Blood of the Lamb, you should be able to state as of that moment, they are condemned, unless they change. That is the battles that we should be trying to win as servants of the Most High.
Now the real question is not that we are unworthy because as you’ve stated from scripture, we all fall short; rather are we saved and how do we know that we are?

hmmm...I would like to answer your direct question with a direct answer, but "regardless of their belief system" leaves a lot of room, bro! I want to answer YES, but I'm not sure how widely you are wanting that phrase to be interpreted?

Yes, I believe God can be seen, and can speak to those around us, believers and non-believers alike. I also believe that anyone can talk to God (both believers and non-believers). If only believers could talk to God, then no one could ever be converted!! If God could only talk to believers, then no one would ever be able to have the chance of being drawn towards Him.

...but an ongoing, conversational, relational dialogue? This would generally be done by believers, in relational pursuit of their Maker.

Not sure if I've answered your question.

Sort of I guess I should have narrowed it down a little or rephrased it. God known also, by many names, however, these names outside of Christianity. Would they lead them to salvation? I would add Judaism, but I not quite sure it counts unless they are Messianic Jews, who do acknowledge Jesus as Christ. To not acknowledge God in three persons and only accepting one or two is rejecting the others. Kind of like having a carton of Neapolitan ice cream (Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry) and only tasting the vanilla and saying you’ve tried Neapolitan ice cream. Have you really? Therein lays the problem, with utilizing the concept of god without Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Without them as I stated before can one be saved? Keep in mind that the believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I’ve always been curious to those that say they have talked to God and He talks with them. Is this through the Holy Spirit or through Jesus as intermediary? I don’t believe that a relationship without Jesus Christ as ones Savior is impossible. If someone is being drawn to Christ? Of cause; however outside Christ Jesus for the purpose of self growth? No. This is something you will find in New Age, and Universalist theology.

That is awesome. Thanks for sharing that. I've had such folks in my life, from time to time, as well...and I have thanked God for them. I agree with you, this is demonstrative of a true relationship with Christ. They've been the hands and feet of Christ to me, over my years...

That being the case, you’ll love a Song by Casting Crowns, called “If we are the Body”. I have a feeling that it will speak to you of your experiences at least those of which were not positive. Makes a statement to what we should be doing. We as the Body of Christ in spite of what others do must step out to both believer and to those who don’t know Him, I repeat must step out and exhibit the Love of Christ that others do not.

hmm...where are you wanting to go with this? Let's just say that between the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, we should have plenty...yet, we also need the input from others to help us see, hear, feel, believe...from time to time. As you eluded to, above.

So, we have it all...but we do not always see. We need others to help in this, God willing.

Input in satisfying needs as mentioned by you above can cover a wide swath of areas, which requires great care would you not say?
I’m also curious of your definition of “relationship with Jesus Christ” and if you wouldn’t mind sharing? I realize this is personal to you, and would not want to intrude on your privacy.

You're welcome. Glad I could be of at least some help here!

You may not believe this, but you are immense help brother.

I'm not sure what exact comment you read/heard Yancey say...but to chalk up the character of an individual based on a comment or two, I think, does a disservice to both you and the person in question.

I'm talking to myself as much as you or anyone else when I say this. I do this too. It's easy. It's human. It's easier to put folks into neat little boxes, and then choose to either ignore them, oppose them, or listen to them. Makes life work, you know?

I thought I had quoted what Yancey had said. “Chalk up”? Not really. Everyone probably has quotes which one might regret saying within the context of how it is received, but in those cases most would be willing to reassess their position, especially in the light of additional learning. To this day, I don’t believe he has. This does remind me of what Mahatma Gandhi once answered to his disciples about having said something totally different on the same subject a couple of weeks prior. “I have gained knowledge since then that has made this statement now true”. How would you answer him? In man’s world this is totally acceptable point of view. Absolute truth does not exist. Yet we know it does in the Trinity. This is the point in all of this. Should I completely trust a man whose illumination (understanding), inspiration (Method of Communicating God’s Word) on God’s revealed Word (That which is revealed by God to man) which is erroneous on a subject that is quite clear scripturally? He leaves in doubt what God’s position is on the subject of homosexuality/lesbianism within scripture. He is a learned and authored man, who is far beyond my abilities. Yet because of exactly this or in spite of this should I or anyone else take everything that he says as Gospel or should I say as “truth”? Or do you believe that God communicates a different truth to each person, even when it conflicts with Scripture? With this in mind on Mr. Yancy, as I have previously stated “Handle with Care” would be advised when dealing with his works.

But how much is missed / lost / skipped by this? Anyways...do what you will, but in Yancey's case, in my opinion, you're missing out on some very grand aspects of Christendom!

It’s possible that something might be missed…..but when one has God’s revealed Word and the Holy Spirit within one. Missing what the world has to offer, doesn’t seem too awful an exchange. At least that’s the way I see it. In this we might differ, only in the way that you’d rather have both But only you can answer if that is so.

I believe the scriptures are inerrant also...but they are not static! The Word of God, and the Holy Spirit in our lives, are very dynamic, wouldn't you agree?

Of cause the Word of God and the Holy Spirit is living and dynamic. Constantly changing? I don’t think so. To give you an example of the care one must take with the Word of God in this world, would you believe that the NIV is creating a Bible that is gender neutral. I believe it’s already in print. How far does man go to accommodate the mores of society? Wouldn’t you like to be the fly on the wall, to hear them explain to God why they changed His Word to accommodate the world? “But it’s not changing what you meant God; it was just communicating in a way that would help them understand it better”. I wonder if God is gender neutral or still identified in the masculine in this bible? In communicating God’s Word should I care more about the sensibilities of man or of God’s Word? Living and dynamic, because even after 2,000 years and advances in all sorts of areas of art, science, theology. It still applies to every generation, person be they, present, past, or future.

Do I believe we will have more to learn which is not within scripture? Sure, but then I believe that is what eternity is for.

This is but one problem I have with the Church: it has become a place where questions are not tolerated. Thoughts, challenged, personal hangups, or much that happens along the spiritual journey that we all are on, are simply not wanted. They are either vetted out and kicked to the sidewalk, or rejected outright. Regarded as heretical, or too dangerous to leave unaddressed.

I didn't read the transcript on Yancey that you seem to be able to recite...but in the quote above, it seems to me that Yancey has some outstanding questions on a few passages.

Once again this general statement makes sense and easy to agree with on face value. The assumption must be that all Churches do not tolerate questions. Next the implication is because of this, that this “spiritual journey we all are on”, means that we must accept all “thoughts”, “personal hang-ups”, or so many they can only be identified as “much” during this journey because they are personal. Scripture within this statement does not seem to matter, unless it is covered somewhere else in what he has written, which is not included here.

Now let me paraphrase this: It’s like if I was to say (and it’s been said) that all the churches hate all homosexuals. I can even show instances where there are some churches that probably do. But would that statement be true or only partially true? There’s a quote I love to use, that explains what discernment is: “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong, but knowing the difference between right and almost right”. That’s how the devil gets us when we choose to believe in what is interpreted by man instead of looking for ourselves to confirm it against the true authority of Scripture as illuminated by the Holy Spirit within us. Does take time, but it’s worth it!

Now back to that statement. To phrase it in such a matter that would lead one to believe that “all churches” would be misleading at best. Being that he is an author and versed in the written language, I’m sure he is well aware of the significance of his words. He’s probably also aware that most people will gloss over and pay little to no attention to the deeper significance of his statements and take it to heart as being true. Now I could read into it and say, but “that’s not how he meant it” “you know he didn’t mean all churches”. Yet by doing it this way, he gains those who have no home church, or those who might be disenchanted with their current one, which provides him the avenue by which to open the door to a better way of “understanding” as communicated by Mr. Yancy? Possible? Err on the side of caution.

“While one man's sword may kill hundreds, even thousands, the writings that come from a single pen may influence human history for eons to come.”The power of the written word! That is even without the Holy Spirit involved to provide understanding! Take great care brother, great care.

Haven't we all?

Is it ok to have a few questions outstanding, of God, our Faith, Jesus Christ, scriptural interpretations, etc? I can't know exactly what Yancey may be questioning here, when he says this...but you seem to feel you do? aarrgghhh.... I wish I knew as much as you on things...

My hope is that you’re not being sarcastic there at the end. Of cause it’s okay to have questions. Remember we’ll have an eternity to get to know our God, and Jesus. We just need to temper and weigh what we take in.

Now back to Mr. Yancy. When he says “pause”, it doesn’t mean he agrees. It just means he hesitates, or stops briefly, when he reads “a few passages”. Meaning: Taken within all the bible verses, there is a few that deal with this, which makes me stop briefly to think about this. Then he says “Frankly, I don’t know the answer to those questions.” Those “few passages” are pretty clear that God does not approve of this behavior. Yet somehow, he cannot find it in himself to answer whether “ordaining gay and lesbian ministers” is acceptable. Now whether they are practicing or not, it is a life style they openly align themselves with. This is how they show their approval. Otherwise it would be ex or former or just plain minister. If they were to say, which they shouldn’t have to, but if are asked if they were gay and say yes, but no longer practice and believe it to be an unacceptable life style for a believer and that it goes against the word of God. Then I could accept them. There’s a brother here at TJ who is fighting this very battle and has put himself out there to be ridiculed by the world to speak this truth. I love him for it and everyone should be praying for him. Why? Because as you’ve said and scripture says, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. None of us are perfect. But can one still be a believer in a position of authority over others and still openly sin, and by so doing give acceptance to it for the world to see? At the least, they would be sending the world a mixed message that what God says is one thing, but what we actually live by or have to do is another. At worse they are condemning those who would accept this position in raising a generation that approves of that sin which is not what God intended for us. I hope you can now see why what he said and the way he said it, took my breath away and why I keep the quotes. It might have been for the very reason that we are communicating that you might hear and believe in the truth of scripture over what man would have you believe.

I can totally respect and understand your wish to stay as far away from any "tolerance" on the issue of homosexuality, if this is a lifestyle you have come out of. That makes complete sense. And, if it's true, that Yancey is "soft" on this issue...then I can see why you would want to stay away from him.

I'm personally not so sure that he's "soft" on the issue, in the way that you may see him as...but of course, I may be wrong on that.

From my previous entry I hope you now understand where I’m coming from. Know that it’s not about “tolerance”. We should never “tolerate” behavior that is sinful. This does not mean that we should not continue to love those afflicted with this or any other sin. I’ve stated in other posts, that I would never expect someone who is not a believer to live by the standards as outlined in scripture. What good would it do them? To live lives of good works and reject the Lord as their Savior? I have cried for this nation. I’ve shed tears that this country turn away from the path of ruin they are on. They are not turning to God, but away from Him. In the guise of a new spirituality that somehow relegates the Word of God as being secondary, for the sake of tolerance. Reread if you don’t remember the exact story of Sodom & Gomorrah. Look at it the behavior of the people. The lives of these happy go lucky, party people, just wanting to share their joy with others. How they behaved when they were turned down. Now look at our nation as it slowly, and in some instances not so slowly move towards condoning the same behavior that destroyed those cities. You think God will excuse this nation? Why would He? Is this country somehow better because of how we were founded? Look at what happened to Israeli. Do I hate the people who accept any sinful behavior? No, that’s why I cry for them brother. No not, ever hate.

Great suggestion, and thanks for it. Love Eccl too...

Anytime my brother.

Now hold on there a minute of two Christ4Ever, you're not off the hook yet: I've got an even better recommendation for you bro!

Go out TODAY, and run -- don't walk -- and buy and read Yancey's What's so Amazing About Grace.

Seriously. On this one, just lay down your Yancey hangups, and trust me on this one.

You can thank me later. And if you do happen to read it, I know you will.

LOL Won’t say that I will, but I won’t say that I won’t. Is that firm enough for you?

Ignoring your personal conclusion that Yancey's faith in God's Word is so weak (which I wholeheartedly will disagree with you on) --- why would someone want to know how Yancey's Faith was transformed by these 13 people?

Because it's his personal testimony, of how he could see God, find God, and strengthen his Faith in God....even in spite of the massive outright hypocrisy, abuse, pious self-righteousness, and personal degredation, that Yancey witnessed as a member of the Church(es) he grew up in, and the people that dressed the innards of those buildings.

And why would that speak to me? Because I can relate to that testimony too...as can, apparently, other massive constituencies of human-beings around you and I this very day.

The Church actually has a terrible record of showing grace, offering love, and showing Christ, to the world. Of course, it also has a side to it that shows the handiwork of Christ extremely well. So...it's both.

Therein lays the problem with many believers and nonbelievers. How does one go about separating the message from the messenger? The belief is we are the total of our experiences, be they bad, good, or indifferent, must be a reflection of them, and can’t do anything about it. Most people cannot and don’t believe that we can separate message and messenger much less the experiences in our own lives from influencing our current or future actions. They say it simply can’t be done. Yet it can be done! Remember who we should be emulating? Yep, you got it Christ! He accepted us as we were, wherever we were from, and whatever we had done or experienced in our lives that made us who we were. I say were because we are no longer that same person. His Grace is so awesome to contemplate that He didn’t even have us get cleaned up first before accepting us. No He didn’t! He accepted us and is also through the Holy Spirit that He's now cleaning us up! Alleluia! Praise His Holy Name!

But, many in the Church vehemently opposed or even hated the likes of Martin Luther King, or Ghandi. Most Christians think Ghandi went to hell...and again, while I can't know this...the life Ghandi lived (whether or not he went to heaven or hell) has the essence of Christ all over it!! This is not an acceptable thought in traditional church folklore!!

Agree with Martin Luther King. Yet as a servant, he truly was no different than the Master. However, Salvation in Jesus Christ is not the message he is remembered for is it? Remember, it’s not the position in this world that is important, be it slave, mechanic, king, or president. It’s the message we communicate, the Gospel! It’s all about our God and how merciful and loving He is! That even being a slave I should love my Master.

Sadly, Gandhi was a sinner, a murderer as well. To believe he was saved, is to believe that he was sealed with the Holy Spirit, without ever acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God. He was if I’m not mistaken a Buddhist. I’m curious when he stands before Christ and is asked why he never looked to Him, not as a man, but God in the flesh. Who died so that His Blood might wipe away all his sin. I wonder what Gandhi will say? I didn’t know? I was a good man? I tried to live and communicate that all should live in peace with each other and to do no harm to another. Kind of sounds like the Ten Commandments doesn’t it? Are we saved by following the Law?

As a loving man, I used to believe this was possible and wanted it to be true. As I grew in the Word of God I found that even God would want none to perish. Yet scripture shows that this will not be the case. Many will reject Salvation; in order to follow what they believe is the right way to go.

A tidbit of information in regards to the use of “essence of Christ”. This type of phrasing is very familiar to those who are New Age, and into Metaphysics. These are not practices that are founded on scripture, but focus more on the creation not creator. Google it and you’ll see what I mean. Probably a subject left for another post. That in its self would make for an interesting back and forth for sure! Not just you and me either. LOL

It took those outside the Church to start the civil rights movement and free the slaves. But the Church authored the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and other various witch-hunts or heretic-torture methods, and numerous other holy wars.

Many people need to see the hand of God outside the Church, because the Church may be the single reason they are repelled from God. For these people, Soul Survivor is a jewel of a book. Perhaps this is so far from your own story, that you can't begin to relate. That may be a blessing for you.

Not so different really. I use to get chased to school from where I lived. Being of Hispanic heritage living in an all middle class Irish and Italian neighborhood made for an increased regimen of exercise. Plus I was skinny as a bean pole, from a family that was really poor, so didn’t fit into the place at all. From 4 – 10 yrs of age I lived there. I could give that young kid 50 pounds now and not miss it at all I won’t say that the Civil Rights Movement freed slaves then it had to do with providing a greater freedom.

Man’s history without God in the lead, is sordid and not something I would call light reading. Oh yeah, remember the church had been corrupted by politics by this time. Prayer was on its way out, to wherever they put the Bibles they had already removed. There’s a brother at TJ who does some very good posts, combining history and scripture and what the future holds by looking at prophecy. You might want to read some of it. Search for Brakelite and you should be able to find the posts I’m talking about. Very instructional and informative to those who are curious about the history of the church.

I could also tell you about being put away in an all boys Catholic home in the country which housed a few hundred other boys, but you’d be reading this post till next Saturday! Plus, the moderators, would probably tell us to send IM’s instead or put it in our Journals if they're that long!

Perhaps. But you know, we're sanctified daily, along the way. We die to ourselves, daily. And why? It's because we've brought alot of our own handiwork into these "boxes", that are our own. So...your box, or mine? They're the same, really. Both have some of our own crud inside of them that need to be dealt with by Christ, God willing.

At times, I'm also relatively pleased with my box...and at other times, I'm disgusted by where I find myself. Thank God for both responses, and may He finish the good work in me that He started!

If the box I’m in is created by God to His good purpose, then I am happy to be in it. It’s not my box nor is it of my own creation. That might have been true prior to be called to Christ, but I am a new creature in Him! Sanctified that I might be Holy one day! For the service of my Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ! That I might be a bit slow in learning from the Holy Spirit however would not be an untrue statement! LOL

uhh...the Church. Why do you act like he "ripped it off" from the Church? MLK was a pastor. That said, he was largely rejected if not despised by the Church at-large, especially those in the Baptist Churches, especially in the South.

Again, Yancey has much to say about this in the MLK chapter of Soul Survivor, if you want to get a better sense for Church history as it relates to the Civil Rights movement. And the Church should be embarrassed about this. MLK got this from the Bible, because he preached fromt he Bible. Not sure why you act surprised by this.

Not MLK my brother, but those who would use his words without understanding the origin or context of what he was saying. Long forgotten by most. Give the world enough time and even Jesus Christ will be just a man, no greater, no better, than any other man. Just a little more enlightened, if a bit naïve. Shoot; that’s already happening everywhere but a few places of faith are left standing. That’s why I love it here at TJ so much. There are folks here that are willing to be in the gap for another, whatever the other may be burdened with.

One of these days I’ll have to tell the story of my experience in a couple of Black Baptist Churches. Quick story here though.

When I was standing up during a funeral service praising God, with about 10 others throughout the Church (It was filled with at least 500 – 1000 or more folks, hot etc.). The looks I received which I couldn’t help but notice when I sat down; made me think that they were saying to themselves “what is that white man doing there?” (There were at most who were not black.) He just might be in the wrong place! LOL Stuff similar to this happens in may churches, regardless of race, nationality, etc.

You're killin' me. Ah...ok...if I can: love you too!?!

LOL

Killin you with Love my brother. At least I hope so, not the killin part but the Love!

 

[ItinerantLurker]

TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

B

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance?

Is this part of the test? Or just a little rant? In either case the answer is from studying the history of life.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said. . .strawman

Albert Einstein said. . .quote mine

I really don't care about these quote mines and/or strawmen - nor do I see why it's necessary to clutter up this test with so much fluff. . .unless the goal is to obfuscate the issue.

A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
___ YES ___ NO

If by "building" you mean a structure built by humans then no.

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

No.

___ YES ___ NO
C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

No.

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows?

That would depend on your evidence, but it's pretty dubious.

A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

This question makes zero sense - please rephrase for coherency.

B. Did it happen by accident?


Did what happen by accident? You need to be a bit less flippant with your pronouns.

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

No.

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

I have no idea.

For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect.

Um. . .no, for you to know with certainty that the statement is true you would have to know absolutely that there is no gold in China or else you would not know if the statement was correct or incorrect.

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic."

That's parsing some pretty fine semantics, what's the point?

You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

Only if you've established that the universe is fundamentally like a human-constructed dwelling. . .which you haven't.

The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

B

You seem to have mixed up your "test" with a lecture at some point here

TEST SIX

With a tender conscience, answer yes or no to this list of the Ten Commandments:

1. Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength?

No.

[This is getting tediously boring]

If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

Except, of course, you seem to have forgotten that I don't believe in your god so you can't exactly expect me to care about such pronouncements. You might as well be telling me that Thor will smite me with Mjolnir if I don't provide a sacrifice by sunset.

Wow so. . .how do you grade this thing anyway? Do I get a sticker or something?

Lurker

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

You might as well be telling me that Thor will smite me with Mjolnir if I don't provide a sacrifice by sunset.

If you had a reasonable expectation of such the nocebo effect might pay you a visit.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

Statement: An Atheist does not believe in God.

Why?

(Please provide your answer in ten lines or less.)

Because there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in Him.
Because some followers of Christ act just as much as jerks as the rest of the world too.
Becuase the Church has done many evil things.
Because God is not as good or as fair as His followers claim, if everything in the Old Testament is true.
Because atheists can't take the bible seriously.

These five should suffice. Also, if you ever wanted to know why atheists can't take the bible seriously, I've included here what I read on some blog or other, and it came to mind when I answered that last line.

To answer this question, we must first understand what the Bible is. It's a series of books written by several authors over the course of decades if not centuries that all centralize their focus on a god and it's followers. Now, this in itself is not a bad thing, but it does signify that something could be amiss. Generally, history and factual books are written by one main author within a few years.

First we must figure out whether the Bible is meant to be taken literally or figuratively. If a literal reading of the book is required, then it can be read as supposed fact to be verified later on. If it's supposed to be taken figuratively, then the book is a work of fiction that has no historical value but can still be used to convey lessons on life and such.

But the thing is Christians argue cases for one or the other, and sometimes even both. Many claim some parts are meant to be taken literally as the Word of God, while other parts are skipped over and never really focused on in sermon, save for the occasional cult gathering.

The problem for us occurs when we read what is in the Bible and make observations based on what we have read. One of the first things atheists generally notice is how disjointed and contradictory the Bible is. There are numerous instances where one chapter or verse will say one thing and the very next chapter or verse will say something different about the same subject. These occurrences range from the order in which everything was created to whether Jesus was born in a manger or a house. It is because of these contradictions and vague passages that atheists lose the ability to interpret the Bible literally. How can something be true if it contradicts itself? It’s at this point that the Bible loses credibility for us, in albeit a partial way. While it’s not a good record of history, humans make errors and it is understandable that a book written by humans would have errors in it. So some allowances are made for mistranslations and such.

The second thing atheists notice when reading the Bible are the instances of impossible claims. Examples including Noah being hundreds of years old and the Ark, the size of a mere football stadium, could hold all of the creatures on Earth which could range anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions, depending on who you ask. Other than the Bible, there is no record of any human living longer than ~120 years, and that’s for today’s society with today’s medicine and technology. As for the Ark, there is simply not enough space to house that number of species, much less allow room for navigation between them, a place to dispose of biological waste, and room for Noah and his family, which included his wife and three sons and their wives. Many of the claims of the Bible are absurd, and that’s not counting the accounts of miracles. Here, the rest of the credibility is lost, because the Bible speaks of things that are not possible even today. This means the literal interpretation is left by the wayside, and we begin to see the Bible as a work of fiction meant to be taken figuratively. That’s not to say that it couldn’t still provide some manner of wisdom in its teachings, though.

The third thing atheists notice is the nature and behaviors of the god of the Bible. Indeed, there are some instances where God acts like this loving father who comforts people. I’m not denying that at all. But there are just as many instances where the Christian god commits acts of sheer lunacy and evil that in today’s society, he would be locked up forever and the key would be thrown away, were he human. There was the time where he killed a man for spilling his seed on the ground. There was the Pharaoh in Egypt where he forced him to refuse Moses, and then punished him because he did not adhere to Moses’ demands. It is this third point that drives the last nail in the coffin for atheists and the reason why we can’t take the Bible seriously. It is instances like those that are why I refer to God as this petty, human-like entity that behaves no better than the rest of us. It is why atheists get angry with Christians when they try to apologetically defend such passages. It is why I do not think religion deserves to be treated with kind, unoffending words. And it is why atheists cannot take the Bible seriously.

Fraction

Oh no, I am not the person in the video or the poster on youtube. I actually brought it to the forum is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, no problem! That was a beautiful video, and I think I will be sharing it with other people also



David777

It is not a theism, not an intellectual manifestation, not a logical construction. It is a Spiritual revelation.

I think here you misunderstand the term theist. From various online dictionaries, theism is: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe
You believe, therefore you are a theist. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and countless others also believe, and they are also all theists.

It has no evidence, no argument, it never existed.

I think you struck the nail squarely on the head with this sentence. That is exactly why atheists have such a hard time believing. I personally can't understand how believing in something that there is no proof that it exists can be considered a good thing.

Christianity is not theism, it is not an intellectual claim.

Gnosticism is a position of knowledge, an intellectual claim. Theism is a position of belief. Christianity is by definition a theist system of belief, and a religion.

There are no assumptions made by a Christian.

Or really now?
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition
I think that fairly covers just about every claim Christianity has made about anything divine or spiritual.

Theism and atheism, both have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Well, your particular brand of theism does.

They need the revelation of Jesus Christ! The Truth! Not a claim!

And yet you claim to know the truth.


@ ItinerantLurker, thank you for that response! I wonder how Chad would react if he saw this, or how he would respond.



Thiscrosshurts, I think that's the point many atheists, myself included, try to make. How can we tell the difference between placebo/nocebo and being touched by the Holy Ghost?

 

[Brother Mike]

I don't want to chime in to much, but.

BCRE8TVE

dBut there are just as many instances where the Christian god commits acts of sheer lunacy and evil that in today’s society, he would be locked up forever and the key would be thrown away, were he human.

I think lot's of the issue here is that you are assuming who God is based on very little knowledge of what the Word says. You just assume things by some unknown reasoning.

Without Judgement, this world would not even be here. God hates to have to judge, he only wants the best for everyone. He is not an uncaring God, and has given man chance after chance.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Just because God did something, does not mean he was real happy with it, or uncaring. With the assumption that he did create us, there has to be some judgement in place.

You also leave out Satan, who is real. Satan causes much destruction, and God gave his word in the Old Testament so people could follow and be protected from Satan.

So that you and I have hope, and can stand before God, he gave his son Jesus. By accepting Jesus, we can stand before God as Not guilty.

Jesus Is Lord.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Thiscrosshurts, I think that's the point many atheists, myself included, try to make. How can we tell the difference between placebo/nocebo and being touched by the Holy Ghost?

Actually I believe it's worth discovering the answer.
Science can reverse engineer right down to the last slippery particle but they can't quite pin it down.Of course science can't prove God because they are busy trying to prove matter.
The Observer effect and Placebo/Nocebo Effect(which I will call OPN) both work on the same thing,a reasonable expectation.

In the natural course of events man would have discovered the effect and attempted to reverse engineer it.They would have noticed patterns and tried to make sense of them.
In this sense all ancient scripture held dear by any culture would contain as much distilled a truth as possible.A culture kept pure of outside influence could maximize the OPN by everyone believing in perfect unity. Other effects such as hypnosis,mass hypnosis could work into this also.When I was agnostic I used to say"if there was no God there might be by now".

I think what I'm getting at is acknowledged in scripture(for believers ok?):
Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do

 

[David777]

Yipee.

Hello BCRE8TVE, nice to receive a reply.
Hope you are well. I love to receive replies from
Atheists.

I asked, "why an Atheist does not believe in God ?".

BCRE8TVE replied, "insufficient evidence".

Tell me BCRE8TVE, and I know you are not naive.
Does a Christian believe in Jesus Christ because of evidence?
Or, does a Christian believe in Jesus Christ due to spiritual input.
The New Testament states that a person believes in Jesus Christ
because said person is granted the awareness to know.
You cannot know who Jesus Christ is unless it is given to you from above.
Unless your eyes are opened.

It is the interaction of the Holy Spirit in the life of the non believer.
It always has been spiritual, it is not the result of evidence!
Jesus Christ is not discovered by intellectual pursuit BCRE8TVE!
Hence, it is not the quantity of evidence as you state that matters.
Rather, it is whether God has allowed you to know Jesus.

Next, you said;
"Because some followers of Christ act just as much as jerks as the rest of the world too."

This does not contribute to the understanding of Atheism or Christianity.
Both of the above camps contain jerks, so what.
This relates to the nature of man BCRE8TVE. In particular, your subjective
understanding of man. The Bible states that mankind is darkness, Jesus Christ is the light.


Next, BCRE8TVE you stated "The Church has done evil".

This is called a generalization BCRE8TVE, all churches differ
from each other, some are good, some are not. If the Catholic
Church conducts an inquisition, and this is evil. This does not mean
all churches conduct inquisitions. Do all churches behave in an evil way?

The Salvation Army does good, helps lots of people. This is a counter
argument BCRE8TV. In the end, whether a specific church is good or bad
is not indicative of whether Jesus Christ is God.
Knowing Jesus Christ is a gift from God, it is by Grace we believe.

Stay with me BCRE8TVE, we progress to your next statement.
"Because God is not as good or as fair as His followers claim, if everything in the Old Testament is true."

1) God creates BCRE8TVE and this is not good.
2) God creates food for BCRE8TVE, this also not good.
3) God tries to rescue BCRE8TVE from death, definitely not good.
4) God bothers to communicate with us, no way, this proves God is evil.
5) God judges people, who gave the creator this right?, evil beyond question.

You are going no where with this type of argument.
The Bible contains nothing but, the supernatural intervention of Jesus Christ (God) with His creation (us).

We, at last, deal with "Atheists do not take the Bible seriously."

I believe, I have already dealt with this. To a non believer the Bible is a dark book, not to be read.
To a believer the Bible is a book of light, truth, the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ.
All spiritual from start to finish. Perspective in the end is it not.

Finally, BCRE8TVE, remember there are more things in Heaven and Earth
that man's diminutive mind is capable of understanding.
If you rely on your intellect and reasoning you will die. Only through Jesus Christ is Life possible.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Tell me BCRE8TVE, and I know you are not naive.
Does a Christian believe in Jesus Christ because of evidence?
Or, does a Christian believe in Jesus Christ due to spiritual input.
The New Testament states that a person believes in Jesus Christ
because said person is granted the awareness to know.
You cannot know who Jesus Christ is unless it is given to you from above.
Unless your eyes are opened.

So. . .atheists can't believe in Jesus unless they already believe in Jesus? Well that helps explain why they're atheists then I suppose.

Next, BCRE8TVE you stated "The Church has done evil".

This is called a generalization BCRE8TVE, all churches differ
from each other, some are good, some are not.

While I appreciate that we can't paint all Christians as corporately guilty of the crimes of this or that church I can sympathize with the notion that a religion that actually had some special insight on morality would have distinguished itself by holding to a consistent moral view.

You are going no where with this type of argument.
The Bible contains nothing but, the supernatural intervention of Jesus Christ (God) with His creation (us).

I think that the point being made is that this intervention doesn't look anything like that of a benevolent God - rather, it looks like an ad hoc cultural invention. . .just like every other religion.

We, at last, deal with "Atheists do not take the Bible seriously."

I believe, I have already dealt with this. To a non believer the Bible is a dark book, not to be read.
To a believer the Bible is a book of light, truth, the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ.
All spiritual from start to finish. Perspective in the end is it not.

So once again, if you don't already believe in Jesus one apparently can't help but be an atheist.

If you rely on your intellect and reasoning you will die. Only through Jesus Christ is Life possible.

Reason and intellect have historically done far more than religion in keeping people alive. Without reason and intellect not only would you not be typing on that computer, you'd likely be dead.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about "Life" in some spiritual manner than, by your own admission, we non-believers can't understand what on earth you're talking about.




Lurker

 

[Chad]

If you are not here to seek Jesus why then are you here Mr.Lurker?

 

[s.i.e.]

If the person is not in Grace then can he ever have been a believer? If not then it would be evident that they are still under the wrath of God. So would the destination for that person be Heaven or Hell? If it seems I’m trying to pin you down that is correct.

Hopefully this gives you your answer: if someone stands before The Father on judgement day without the grace/atonement/forgiveness offered by Jesus and He alone, then they will not enter Heaven. And further, yes, I understand the "other place" to be known as hell.

Guess? Couldn’t one make an educated guess as I’ve stated before? Stalin who is said to have cursed God with his dying breath..... Hummm willing to make an educated guess on him? Judas? How about Herod of Jesus’ of the time of His birth? Maybe? I hope you see what I’m getting at.

Well...I think I know what you're saying here: you're saying that there are things that we, as human-beings, don't have to wonder/guess at with regard to another human-beings eternal destiny. You're saying that it's "for sure" that Judas / Stalin / Hitler, etc etc...and all for sure in hell.

And for me, while I can certainly understand your reasoning and logic on this, it's very simple: I am no judge, and I am no jury...and I am extremely happy to NOT be in the seat of God who would have to hand out such eternal homes to those He created.

I don't understand it, and I don't envy the position of God in this regard! Also, who of us is to say whether something may transpire in that "in-between" state, where we have one final chance to accept His love or not? Who is to know these things of eternity?

Anyways...more practically speaking: I'm not sure why I care to judge folks in such ways. It's ultimately between him/her, and God...alone. Alone.

We will all stand, alone, before the throne. We will have no patsy to point our finger towards, for our own actions and choices. We will answer for ourselves. So, what of my brother's choices? We are to love our brother...and ultimately, trust. Trust God, trust our brother...with the choices they make, and the direction in which God leads them.

Input in satisfying needs as mentioned by you above can cover a wide swath of areas, which requires great care would you not say?

A great deal of trust...is what I would say. Trust in God, to help you gain wisdom, discernment, and understanding...in what He would speak to you, and how He would lead / guide you. Input that comes to us, comes purposefully, and for a reason. Thanks God for sending the Holy Spirit for such a task like this!

I’m also curious of your definition of “relationship with Jesus Christ” and if you wouldn’t mind sharing?

See above. This is a very dynamic thing. Kind of like life. So, while reading scripture and fellowship are part of this...the relational part is mainly through praying and talking to Jesus daily. Often. Throughout the day. As things happen. As they come at you. As you come across "input", or instances that you have to respond to. For pain that you're dealing with, or blessings, or lonliness, or emptiness, or crying out.

You may not believe this, but you are immense help brother.

Hey...thanks!

Missing what the world has to offer, doesn’t seem too awful an exchange. At least that’s the way I see it.

Why then, did Paul make such a point of going around Mars Hill to observe and take-in the culture around him, which he was going to become ingrained within as brought them the Good News? What was the point of this, for him? Was it an example for us too?

Some are called to live silent reflective monastic lifestyles...but not those called to preach, like Paul was. For those folks, they have to know exactly what it means to be "in the world but not of it". IMO, Christians do the world a disservice by focusing nearly exclusively on the "not of it" part, and cannot relate to their fellow man, much of the time.

Of cause the Word of God and the Holy Spirit is living and dynamic. Constantly changing? I don’t think so.

I agree.



...more later...

 

[Christ4Ever]

So. . .atheists can't believe in Jesus unless they already believe in Jesus? Well that helps explain why they're atheists then I suppose.

Close but no cigar. You’ve missed the point. It is about being drawn to this belief that makes it supernatural and very awesome. What stimulates the spirit of man which draws him to hear might have been a better question.
It’s not initially about believing. It’s kind of like smelling something good being cooked in the kitchen or there’s the smell of something burning. Our senses are set to explain the environment that we are in, or at least to draw us to make a determination on the stimulus it has received. That’s why the Lords command in Mark 16:15. Now read Romans 10:13-15 and the method become quite evident. Due to the fact that we don’t know the exact moment when someone is called (Look at the variety of testimonies here at TJ as examples.). Is it possible that the person who claims to be an atheist and is here at TJ just might be drawn to hear the Word of God?
To answer the initial question I suggested should be asked is God the Holy Spirit.

While I appreciate that we can't paint all Christians as corporately guilty of the crimes of this or that church I can sympathize with the notion that a religion that actually had some special insight on morality would have distinguished itself by holding to a consistent moral view.

Somehow confusing the message with the messengers is something that's a constant, both in and out of the church. If we were perfect, then it might be understandable to sympathize with the aforementioned position, but remember its being used to describe the falseness of the message, without relating this to the message its self, but to man's imperfections in general.

I think that the point being made is that this intervention doesn't look anything like that of a benevolent God - rather, it looks like an ad hoc cultural invention. . .just like every other religion.

Once again message to messenger. In some instances, it is an ad hoc cultural intervention. This is normally the case because it has removed its self from using Scripture as "the foundation" or moving away from the foundation which established the particular church in question. The further one moves away from scripture regardless of the justification, it increases the chances of error.

So once again, if you don't already believe in Jesus one apparently can't help but be an atheist.

I don't have to reiterate my previous statement do I?

Reason and intellect have historically done far more than religion in keeping people alive. Without reason and intellect not only would you not be typing on that computer, you'd likely be dead.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about "Life" in some spiritual manner than, by your own admission, we non-believers can't understand what on earth you're talking about.




Lurker

As long as the church adheres to scripture, its reason and intellect are above anything else found of man. What is Life without God and only reason and intellect to survive? If this world were all there was to it, then this assumption might be correct because there would be nothing else. It would be what you see is what you get. The rational mind has difficulty even to begin to imagine a God, much less someone dying for them on the Cross. However, because it does not include God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, it is not right.

Love you with the Love of Christ Jesus!
C4E
P.S.
Didn't have time to double check this. Dinner is on! Burgers & Fries!

 

[ItinerantLurker]

It is about being drawn to this belief that makes it supernatural and very awesome. What stimulates the spirit of man which draws him to hear might have been a better question.

So. . .someone must be called by God, and understand that this call is from God, in order to become a Christian? That seems to imply that, once again, you'd have to already believe in God calling you to believe in God.

Somehow confusing the message with the messengers is something that's a constant, both in and out of the church. If we were perfect, then it might be understandable to sympathize with the aforementioned position, but remember its being used to describe the falseness of the message, without relating this to the message its self, but to man's imperfections in general.

That the bible and the various churches who ostensibly follow its teachings fail reflect a consistent moral view is an indictment against it being anything other than just another religious text that was the product of a culture, not a god.

As long as the church adheres to scripture, its reason and intellect are above anything else found of man.

Really? What practical value did we gain from scripture that we did not or could not have come by via reason and intellect?

What is Life without God and only reason and intellect to survive? If this world were all there was to it, then this assumption might be correct because there would be nothing else.

You seem to have forgotten to whom you are addressing this post.



Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

Ok...continuing my response to you C4E...

The assumption must be that all Churches do not tolerate questions.

In this section of your response, you seemed to highlight and point out, several times and in several ways...how I focused way too much on the all-encompassing and unforgiving word, ALL.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote...but to clarify, no, I wasn't talking in absolutes here. Nor was Yancey, in my opinion (from what you quoted from him).

This focus on the all seemed to have come from you, and I'm not sure why. In any case, when I said "the church" (this, or that, etc)...I was talking in generalities. And yes, the Church (generally speaking) does not tolerate certain question, or if they do, not for long! Eventually (generally speaking!) they get kicked aside and run over.

If they were to say, which they shouldn’t have to, but if are asked if they were gay and say yes, but no longer practice and believe it to be an unacceptable life style for a believer and that it goes against the word of God. Then I could accept them.

Do you see your big IF, C4E? If (this or that)..."then I could accept them".

And this is why I used a big generalization, when I talked about the Church, above. No, it's not ALL people in the Church...but similar to your conditional acceptance verbiage above, so it is with the Church.

And is this how Christ operates? Is this "conditional" acceptance what Jesus taught us? What Jesus showed us? Forget about whether it's right or wrong, for a second...and ask yourself how you respond/react/act to folks who may be (in this example that you reference) gay. Your answer is, no, you do not accept them.

But why? Is it because they are "sinning", or living a "wrong" lifestyle? I can't say I disagree with that...but what of the person behind it? What of them?

Why would you not accept this person? Why is this person "unacceptable" to you? Again, you are not their judge. You have that luxury...enjoy it!!! And look past the sin, towards the person.

Accept them. Love them. Yes, it's hard. Yes, you have to look past your "judgement call" on their life/lives...and get to the essence of the person!!

Jesus showed us this. Numerous examples, all throughout...Jesus approached, accepted, loved, taught, enjoyed, and spent time with "sinners".

It's not that God doesn't, or won't judge...but Jesus primarily operated with acceptance, love, and gentleness, with the marginalized. With those the Church cast out.

it’s not about “tolerance”. We should never “tolerate” behavior that is sinful. This does not mean that we should not continue to love those afflicted with this or any other sin.

Hmm...well, yes. And no. Yes, "tolerance" can certainly go to far, and it does this often. It turns into coddling, or even enabling, sure. But there's a fine line in that, is there not? Look at your last sentence (above) compared with the first, and ask yourself how easily you reconcile those two statements. It's not necessarily an easy task.

As for me (and you, I would imagine!), how thankful am I the fact that God tolerated, and still tolerates, me in my sinfulness? Had He zero tolerance, He would simply have sunk the Ark, yes?

God tolerates and suffers us. So much so that we have John 3:16, etc. No, it's no small thing.

But again, in your case, what have you to tolerate, since you are gleefully not in the seat of judgement in the first place? This is not your burden.

Shed it. And enter into that which matters. Your fellow man's sinfulness is simply not yours to bear.

Now look at our nation as it slowly, and in some instances not so slowly move towards condoning the same behavior that destroyed those cities.

Is this my concern?

What does Matthew 12:48 mean to you? Or how about Luke 9:60a? "Let the dead bury the dead".

Don't get me wrong - I love this nation - but history is indeed His Story, and He's got His reasons for things, and how they happen. Is it yours to stop? We know history leads us to the Book of Revelation, do we not?

I do not cry for this nation. It is happening just as your Lord would have planned it. And for a reason I cannot understand or know...but I can trust that is for His eventual glory.

Believe, and Trust -- this is what your thought causes me to have to do. Not fret. Not cry. Not worry. No.

You think God will excuse this nation?

I don't know. Not my question to answer. Ask God. Thankfully, and that's an understatement...it's not my burden to have to bear to give such an answer to this question. Free yourself from it, bro.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

I thought I might share this with everyone on here. I just found it out.

First off, this appears to be HISTORICALLY SUPPORTED. I have not researched it myself, but others on here might have, hence why I am posting it. This is not my wild imagination, this is not me providing false teachings. This is historical information, which can either be shown through research to be correct or incorrect. These are not my claims, and I hope this will not bring the banhammer down on my head.

However, because it does not include God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, it is not right.

Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? .......THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.” Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.” So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” .......
PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.
The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.” The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.” The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.” In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

From what is apparently a Jehovah Witness brochure entitled 'Sould you believe in the Trinity?', but for which there seems to be ample historic support available in the 'net.

 

[Gmart]

I do have some questions for the atheists on this forum but first I want to declare any scripture I quote is for the sake of the Christians reading as I am fully aware that scripture means nothing to an atheist. (1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.) That being said, I have some questions about science and its validity for those who read this.

First, let's talk about evolution. I believe wholeheartedly that micro evolution (evolution within a species) is true; all we have to do is take one look at selective breeding to prove it. My question is: can you present one piece of duplicable evidence that shows a species of x# of chromosomes can become species of y# of chromosomes? As I look at the human species and we see a man or woman gain one chromosome the outcome is a person with Down syndrome. How does this support or deny macro evolution (evolution from one species to another). If macro evolution were true why is it that nearly every ancient culture has tales of the origins of life coming from a deity rather than from monkeys? If we did come from primates and survival of the fittest is playing a huge part of our evolution why is it that a chimpanzee has 3x the strength of a human and an ape even more than that? We surely could use the strength and when a female primate chooses a breeding companion it is always done off of the strongest and most dominant male. If evolution is true, how does one that believes in it explain away the mounds of archaeological evidence that shows early man was much smarter than given credit plus all the evidence that points toward man and dinosaurs being on the earth at the same time? I am referring to all the structures that we can't duplicate with our modern technology, either stones are too big to move or cut too precisely to replicate, and all of the figurines, pictographs and carvings in stone of dinosaurs. Are we to believe that early man with limited reasoning capabilities was able to take the bones of a dinosaur and determine what it looked like? Why is it that a mosquito in amber dated millions of years old looks just the same as a modern day mosquito? Lastly how does one ignore the mathematical impossibility it would take to even have evolution come about? The fact is only micro evolution is provable.

Next let's talk about heliocentricity vs geocentricity. This is a theory put forth by Copernicus that states the sun is the center of our solar system and that all planets rotate about it and that our earth rotates on its axis, with geocentricity being the dominant view prior to this because that is what the Bible teaches. The problem with this is that every experiment done to determine heliocentric validity, to date, has failed with some of those failed experiments proving that the earth is not rotating. The fact is that without being able to have a third person view of our solar system it is impossible to tell which is the correct theory, yet heliocentricity is taught to us as an absolute truth in schools. Let's look at this logically, if the earth is rotating at 1000mph, as they say, how is it that I can take a flight from east to west and then return west to east when the average commercial flight flies around 500mph? Why is it that we don't have 1000mph winds on the face of the earth? Some may say it is because the ozone layer and yet this has a huge hole in it that would only serve to pressurize those winds even further. Why is it that the water on the face of the earth doesn't fly off due to centrifugal forces? I already know I will hear the answer of gravity which leads me to my next point. Gravity is a mythical thing that cannot be proven, tested or measured in any way. I am not denying that I could drop 100 tennis balls from a one story building and get the same result every time but I am denying the THEORY of gravity which tells us that all objects have a pulling force that is determined by their amount of mass. Can anyone tell me how a fly can land on me and freely exit my gravitational pull when ratio wise my mass vs a fly's mass is probably greater than the earth's mass vs the moon's mass? How is it that the gravitational force is so great that it can hold billions and billions of pounds of water on the face of the earth at any given moment, even more astounding if the earth is rotating, and yet not crush a frail human body under that same force?

The fact is that all three of these areas of science that I have discussed are nothing more than theories and yet they are almost always declared to be the truth. How is it that atheists can get upset at the Christians for openly declaring their beliefs when these theories are being falsely declared as truth and pushed in everybody's face on a daily basis through schools, the internet, entertainment and any other avenue possible? Another little known fact is that when heliocentricity gained the dominant view it was heralded as a victory over the Bible by Galileo. This proves that the reason this was presented is because men refuse to believe in God and I'm sure the same can be said for evolution. (Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

 

[David777]

*** Attention all ***

Please read the following carefully.
What is an assumption?

Something that is accepted as true without proof.

The assumptions of science are:

1. Nature is orderly, it has a pattern, and structure.

2. We can know nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

For all these assumptions 1-6, there is no proof, they are held to be true.
You must believe that the assumptions are true to accept Science.
My problem is with assumptions numbers 3, and 5.

All phenomena have natural causes.
What an incredible assumption to make.
This is well beyond the scope of thought to assume.
Since, Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
How is it possible to make an assumption regarding natural causes?
Jesus Christ created the Universe.
Test that one Mr Scientist.

Knowledge is derived empirically.
Empiricism emphasizes evidence, in experiments.
Rather than on reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Note: Jesus Christ is revelation.
The Bible is revelation.
Empiricism is going nowhere.

In conclusion, Science is going nowhere,
it never had it in the first place.

 

[David777]

Hello, nice day.

Just moving this thread back up.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

In conclusion, Science is going nowhere,
it never had it in the first place.

Well all they can really do is reverse engineer to smaller and smaller particles until ....Whoops...Now where did that matter run off too now.
Hold on a second we almost have proof that matter exists.There...oh never mind its just the observer effect... affecting...anomaly...placebo.. hypnosis...cosmos...

Yes,yes all very certain and scientific and I'm sure given enough time science can prove matter exists and that would mean we sort of exist by default.

How many scientists refused to believe in dark matter 30 years ago.
Simply because they could not see or detect it.That is until they actually tried to detect it.
Not all scientists believe there is a Higgs Boson,it can't be found yet so is that science or is it an exploration into a possibility with the hope that it will yield results..

A christian seeking to know if there is a God takes that same faith exploration in hope it will yield results.Since they are seeking results on a personal level the interpretation of the results is also judged by the individual.