atheist wrote:Well, not really, Kurieuo. Just a literal understanding of everyone of the sayings. And, Mastermind, with all due respect, I learned these as a Christian, so I can tell.
Yes, but you remain blind for you are not aware of what Christ speaks. You are like those of whom Jesus said never understand:
11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.... 13This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' (Matthew 13:11,13-15)
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Listen, I have a question for you. Throughout this discussion, it seems that you are very level-headed and merely stating your beliefs. I find it refreshing in the sense that so many atheists in your shoes would at this point have become rather angry, while you have not.
Aside from scripture, I wonder if some of your disbelief in Christ (after stating you were once a Christian) comes from not only what you believe to be scripture based, but also from Christians themselves. Let me explain. There's a song titled, "What If I Stumble" by DCtalk. It's prefaced by a narration from George Clooney, the actor. He says, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." That to me is a profound thought and probably accurate. Any thoughts?
Many Christians lump all non-Christians into a catch-all category of atheists, then call them morons and idiots and [homosexuals], and many other names which do not suggest that the sources of these slurs are very Christian. I am routinely struck by this behavior at Christian discussion sites, when all the 'atheist' scientists at their discussion sites display this behavior rarely if ever. In this sense, at least, scientists seem to be much more Christian than many Christians. Christian hypocrisy is alive and well, in part I believe due to a lack of faith among some. A Christian of deep and abiding faith would see no purpose in this type of address, and would see it as antithetical to the most fundamental tenets of Christianity.
As I have said before, I know no atheists. Atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist, and no one I know--certainly not any scientists I know, and I know a lot--would ever make this claim.
Aside from scripture, I wonder if some of your disbelief in Christ (after stating you were once a Christian) comes from not only what you believe to be scripture based, but also from Christians themselves.
Well, Wendy, to be completely honest, my disbelief in Christ came directly from Christ himself as portrayed in the NT. If you don't mind, due to your evident kindness, that I quote a previous post of yours:
He didn't have any flaws of character, He was without sin of any kind.
This was the point for me. I never saw His character, merits or preach remarkable in any sense. I lied to myself for many years, but finally I broke the pressure of education and environment and only recently "came out of the closet" to express my particular opinion on the subject.
I'd love to discuss and tell about the whole matter, but unfortunately the moderator invited me to abandon the forum on the ground that if I'm not a Christian I don't belong here. So, I don't know...
And, by the way, John Hammond, a fantastic statement. My congratulations.
As I have said before, I know no atheists. Atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist, and no one I know--certainly not any scientists I know, and I know a lot--would ever make this claim.
Anyway, it might be just a matter of definition. From a scientific point of view I would consider myself a skeptic, but in a lifestyle-scope I call myself an atheist, as I do not recognize any gods. I just take the strict etymologic sense of the expression. I would be an 'anti-theist' otherwise
In their foolishness they profess to be wise....that's what's ironic about people...the Dark Age was the age of Enlightenment Age (it's called the Dark Ages because that's when Christianity-in the form of Catholicism, spread), and the Enlightenment and Age of Reason are the Dark Ages.
This was the point for me. I never saw His character, merits or preach remarkable in any sense.
Ever read below the surface?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Atheist--You're right in that it is a matter of definition. Most scientists I know are deeply religious people--how could one not be when confronted with such beauty?--but most do not subscribe to any particular institutional view of religion. Thus, they are often labeled as atheists by the orthodoxy. However, in my experience many of these people are among the most moral and ethical people I know, at least in terms of how they treat their fellow human beings, and the importance they place on the larger purpose of their work and commitments.
As an example, most physicians I know work enormously hard for the benefit of their patients; and when they need to take a stand on issues of public policy, they base their arguments on objective evidence of what policies benefit society most. As a Christian, I have never felt dismissed or not respected, even when I declined to take part in training for abortions for religious reasons. Many of my physician friends--including myself--have traveled to less privileged parts of the world, and worked side-by-side with Christian missionaries, making very little money, but doing so because of the faith each of us has in our respective convictions. I can make similar arguments for most of the scientific establishment, in which I have spent a lot of time.
I am often frustrated by how narrow and arrogant some Christians can be, especially in the realm of public policies. I can excuse non-scientists for misinterpreting science and its conclusions (and sometimes ignoring these conclusions when they do not support their particular view of Christianity). But when evidence strongly supports a particular health policy vis-a-vis its ability to reduce morbidity and mortality, and a person chooses to consciously go against it in the belief that their personal moral authority is superior *and* they must force that moral practice on others, then they are betraying their faith: They assume their judgement is superior even in the presence of God-given evidence, and therefore assume a level of infallibility.
I think the following quote taken from another thread illustrates this quite well:
"the burden of proof is on the deviant. since christianity is the world religion with the most followers (or one of the largest world religions), and since we live in a christian society...and since the virgin birth and Jesus' divinity are christian beliefs, the atheist or skeptic must prove US wrong."
This effectively states that, in the event of a disagreement, a minority of the world's population has the right to demand the rest of the world to prove them wrong; when extended to social issues, this is a sin.
I do apologize only having but a few moments to make a rambling remark or two. First of all, I wanted to thank John and others for the kind words regarding my posts (I loved your post too, John. There's much to talk about within the science area and God). Secondly...the moderator asked you, atheist, to leave the forum because you're not a Christian??? Well, I'm respectfully asking that the moderator rethink that request. I would ask that discrimination be allowed on another board...but please, never a Christian board. Tell me how that kind of request is founded within a Christian heart? My suggestion is that he, atheist, stays without proving first that he's white, black, rich, poor, or Christian. It's Maudy Thursday...I gotta head off to church.
Atheist: well er yes, Jesus was referring to the future church in this and other quotes. His responsibility was not to His birth family first but to to the lost sheep of His flock.
atheist wrote:I'd love to discuss and tell about the whole matter, but unfortunately the moderator invited me to abandon the forum on the ground that if I'm not a Christian I don't belong here. So, I don't know...
WendyWoman wrote:Secondly...the moderator asked you, atheist, to leave the forum because you're not a Christian??? Well, I'm respectfully asking that the moderator rethink that request. I would ask that discrimination be allowed on another board...but please, never a Christian board. Tell me how that kind of request is founded within a Christian heart?
Firstly, non-Christians are infact welcome to participate so this is just not true. Yet, this board also serves a particular purpose which everyone agreed to when they registered. This board is for Christians, and non-Christians who may be seeking without any particular motive to debate against Christianity. It is therefore exclusive to certain people, namely those who have already made up their minds against Christianity and just wish to debate against it. It is not our fault people do not read the board purpose and exchanges thereafter, and I'd also recommend they read why we decided with this new approach rather than a debate style board.
Don't like it? Try visiting Secular Web or some of the many other zillion boards across the Web. But I believe we have grown, and continue to do so, predominantly because of the unique purpose this board attempts to serve.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
I am at fault of not taking the time to read your: Discussion Guidelines
Board Purpose, Language ,Mannerism, Constructive Discussions and Plagiarism, References, and Misquoting... prior to my posting. I owe you an apology. Your rules are very clearly defined. But you see, while I am at fault for not first reading your rules to post, I honestly didn't think, nor would it have occurred to me, that as Christians there would be limitations on legitimate posting...even by non-Christians. Isn't this piece of scripture in direct opposition to some of your rules?
Ezekiel 2: 3-8
3Ezekiel, I am sending you to the people of Israel. They are just like their ancestors who rebelled against me and refused to stop. 4They are stubborn and hardheaded. But I, the LORD God, have chosen you to tell them what I say. 5Those rebels may not even listen, but at least they will know that a prophet has come to them.
6Don't be afraid of them or of anything they say. You may think you're in the middle of a thorn patch or a bunch of scorpions. But be brave 7and preach my message to them, whether they choose to listen or not. 8Ezekiel, don't rebel against me, as they have done. Instead, listen to everything I tell you. CEV
Perhaps I am at fault again for not using a private message to express my thoughts, but you were open about expressing yours and ...I prefer things out in the open. It's far better than secrecy, no?
And believe me, the last thing on my mind is walking into a forum where the outcome of my posts becomes problematic for folks. I was just enjoying the discussion when...things abruptly turned from interesting dialog to asking people to leave. But I'm guessing that it would probably be best, under the circumstances, if I read only and not post - for with all due respect -In my heart I believe in spreading the Good News not controlling it. I believe in dealing with the real world, (as flawed as it might be), not becoming cheerleaders for only like-minded individuals.
By the way...this is a beautifully designed board. Nicely done! It's very user friendly...
I've been involved in several debates. They are merely persuasive arguments based entirely on fact (or at times, life-experience opinions) in an effort to make people ponder, consider and understand why they feel as they do. It absolutely is a teaching tool, as well as a learning experience. Destroying an opponent? You mean like Luther? The Righteous prevail. Have faith...
I was using the term 'debate' according to its general definitions:
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
v. tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
Apropos of the very first definition, it is hard to imagine how one learns without considering issues and questions; and discussion and deliberation is a very good way for all parties to learn.
