Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
I admit I’ve been conflicted about the spanking debate, but I have been encouraged by these posts to look into it more than ever, which is good considering its relevance to me and my children, ages five and soon-to-be two. On the one hand, I HATE spanking and have not had any peace about it the times I have used it even as a last resort (e.g., “If you refuse to go to time-out, then you’ll be spanked”). On the other hand, I see a lot of kids these days are obnoxious and it looks like they need a lot more and/or sterner discipline, and it’s important to me that my children not be obnoxious. I do explain the “why” of all discipline (though I understand some people want simple obedience and respect for authority and so do not); of course you can explain the reasoning for it to your child regardless of the form of discipline used, which may help to encourage adherence when you’re not around.
Looking into the norms, I see close to 70% of parents use spanking today (USA and Australia). This is down from over 80% who say they were spanked as kids.
Looking into the research I see it is pretty much all intended to dissuade parents from spanking their children, and understandably so considering the potential for harm or abuse. BUT I do see extreme flaws in the studies – mainly all their claims about what spanking causes or increases (aggression, mental illness, low IQ, antisocial and criminal behavior) are all based on a misunderstanding of correlational studies – We know correlation CANNOT be said to imply causality. So, for example, a person with an inborn or other tendency toward aggression, rebelliousness or antisocial behavior would often receive more spankings as a child based on their behavioral tendencies - If naturally aggressive and defiant Ben was always hurting other kids and defying authority, then Ben would be more likely to get spanked than naturally sweet Marty who never really needed much discipline; We couldn’t then say Ben turned out more aggressive and defiant BECAUSE of the spankings he received. As another example, aggression, low IQ, criminal behavior, etc. are related to low socio-economic status, in which we also find higher use of spanking; therefore, we can’t assume the spanking caused these behaviors, etc. when it may simply be the social class and related circumstances causing them.
Looking into it biblically, we may or may not find support for spanking, depending on the interpretation of “rod” within the Word and whether the proverbs are figurative or literal. It looks as if the “rod” refers to the “Shebet”, which is one of three things: the walking stick held by the head of a family that showed guests who it was that had authority, a shepherd's staff, or a king’s sceptre. None of these rods were used for hitting. In the proverbs about discipline, we are told of the rod leading to life and the absence leading to death – When the king withheld the Shebet it lead to death, but if it was extended it brought life (see the book of Esther). Solomon was chosen to write Proverbs, and since he was a king, he likely was referring to the scepter, which would not have been used for hitting. Just as we don’t literally cut off our hand as Jesus stated, we don’t necessarily literally hit our kids with a rod, but rather we discipline and bring them up in the Word and the Spirit. I am speaking without any revelation from the Spirit in this matter, and so this is only biblical study and suggested possibilities/understanding without inspired knowledge.
Using my intuition, on the one hand it says that it makes sense that if children are spanked/hit, they may be more prone to the use of violence or forcefulness. On the other hand, my intuition says that PERHAPS the increasing arrogance, disrespect and so on of young people is in part the result of kids who fear nothing because they are/were never sternly disciplined.
So what to conclude? I think because of God’s different plans for everyone’s life, it may be overstepping our bounds to conclude anything about spanking for EVERYONE (perhaps getting spanked does contribute to greater forcefulness, for example, but perhaps this is a trait needed for certain law enforcement or military people). I don’t judge any of my peers or any of our parents for spanking (though I tend to judge myself more harshly than anyone else). While I know nothing of it conclusively, for me personally I’d rather err (if it is error) on the side of avoiding emotional harm to my children (and deep within me I have too much concern over spanking); so I have here been encouraged to avoid even the occasional use of spanking. Hopefully alternative discipline will be effective in avoiding the arrogance and disrespect I see in a lot of kids, and I won’t regret the choice with my children. I do actually feel good about the choice to avoid spanking, and I have some sense that this is where the Spirit would have me specifically go with my child-rearing for whatever reasons that may relate if not to his general will, then specifically to the personalities of me and my children.Yes, some are baited by extreme inflammatory and unnecessary rhetoric, and when people reply with absolute and undeniable 100% truth, they get in trouble or give up.
This is repeatably observable. There are names of very real "conditions" that describe what we observe. Even if one is not a trained psychoanalyst, psychiatrist, therapist, counselor or psychologist, one can see there is something VERY terribly wrong.
That some now silenced for whatever the reason doesn't mean they weren't 100% on the money about their assessments when they could still make them.I am confused. You do or do not reject the bible's extreme inflammatory and unnecessary rhetorical opinion on non believers?
I am a Christian that believes in Jesus and his teachings, as much as I can understand and interpret them. Do you have any in particular you want to discuss?
Yes - I already asked you and you ignored the question as usual. I know Jesus told us to fear, but - I find that rather disgusting.
Weird - can you not read the words? Clearly I mentioned a "point of Jesus" to discuss and you chose to ignore it - once again.
Very good point. You are absolutely brilliant today.
Tell me you're single
No, I actually am not seeing which of his teaching you want to discuss. Can we try again, that is if you truly want to discuss them?
Well - how about discussing the fact that he told people to fear and I find that offensive. Is that why you hate atheists so much? Because we are not afraid?
Do you have a verse in particular? Fear what in particular?
In fairness to you, as much as I posted today, I saw probably less than half of the actual posts, it was a busy day in here. I am now catching up. Some patience with me would be appreciated, thanks. What in particular with the fear?That I find it offensive to be told to fear god by your saviour. Is that why you have such a problem with atheists?
I would prefer to see a particular verse and can respond better to the first part.
To the second part, what makes you say I have such a problem with atheists? When I have a particular problem say with something that is said or done, I can respond to those in particular and do usually.Luke 12.
You don't have a problem with atheists? Confused again.But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
That's what clergy tend to say Jesus said... of course since they hold positions of power and influence, fear is their friend... hence the aforementioned defiling/rape/dilution of purity, that I mentioned.
The gospel we preach is one of love for all people, not hate for any - Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, whatever they may be. ALL may come to him; he is the great "equalizer".
So no burning in hell for the non believers and you also reject what the bible says? Good for you.
Nope no burning in hell. lol according to Christianity today, The man/God Jesus made everything God in heaven said about "obey my laws or suffer" out to be a lie. In truth Jesus never said anything that that Christians most likely if a Christian quotes something in conflict with the laws of God like no more animal sacrifice, sex is bad, no drinking and Jesus covered your sins with his blood: those words come from Paul the Apostle who was from the church which was enemy of Jesus and teaching men to obey mans laws instead of Gods true laws, in order to regain control of a people following Jesus. Christians make many mistakes in there beliefs about how to please God and how to follow Jesus, the first and foremost is assuming Jesus is God and worshiping him instead of following his example.
An not to pee in the atheist fruit loops, but be it science, religion, or lack of religion everything starts with opinions, and later leads to becoming a belief "faith". There may not be and agreement on what you believe but to believe something is faith. Christians among many religions believe there is a god and set principles towards that belief. The same way atheist believe there is no god and set principles towards that belief. If having a belief and setting principals towards that belief constitutes a religion, then would not Atheism the belief there is no god live as you chose fall under a religious philosophy? Just a thoughtWe don't ASSUME Jesus is God, Jesus himself let it be known that he is God in the flesh - Jesus stated, “I and the Father are one” (10:30, John); and just as God gave himself the name “I AM” (3:14, Exodus), so "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am'" (8:58, John). And John, whose words you esteemed, said it this way: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (1:1, 14, John)
We know by the Spirit within us that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, just as prophesied - Immanuel, God with us. The Spirit that is within us will not let us accept any other gospel."I and the Fatah-er are one" If Jesus teaches Gods laws and thinks the same as God the Jesus and God are one. I teach gods laws and think the same as God, am I therefore God? If between realms of reality heaven and earth Jesus is son to God and always been since before Abraham is it not possible that Jesus and his father were both before Abraham? If the Word is Gods laws and Promise God did not come in the flesh a man came and taught Gods true laws to those who had been lied to yby the church. Think about it. If Jesus was God in the Flesh there would have been no possible way to kill him.
As much as holding a belief that fairies do not exist constitutes a religion. Is that your religion? The "No Fairies" religion.
I don't see how not believing claims made by people that are not backed up with any evidence could constitute a religion.
RA
once again we agree on something: you are confused.
Keep on fighting "the good fight", oceansnsunsets!
"The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor 10:4-5)Thank you so much Cat for your encouragement. I truly appreciate it.
Since when does being "baited" mean that no one had to take responsibility for their own words and actions? You have to make the choice to take the "bait" and that choice comes with consequences. Is there an addendum to the forum rules somewhere that says that if you feel you have been "baited" you can say whatever you want with no repercussions? I'm guessing not.
The funny thing is no one was baited...
Some fish just throw themselves into the boats, no tackle needed.Hence the air quotes. That's why it's so hilarious. When all someone has to defend their position is personal attacks and hypocrisy, they are displaying their own weakness and irrationality. It amounts to "I don't like it, therefore it is all your fault". It's absurd, yet incredibly funny to witness, especially when accompanied by a dose of self righteousness. I'd get a smaller horse, if I were in that position. That way it's not too far a fall.
And the efforts that they go through to prove that righteous indignation is justified.
"If I say someone was bad long enough, they'll believe it... especially if I get other people to say it as well"
Yes, shaming by peer pressure always works... on people who have no self-esteem, no individuality, and a strong desire to conform to a group. You can tell which people are susceptible to that because that's the way they treat others.I'm shocked too. I was starting to wonder if you two were ever going to disagree on anything, since you're both related in Christ and believers must unite to fight the powers of. ...
Wait. Strike that, reverse it.
Doesn't the Bible say that God is not the author of confusion? Doesn't say anything like that about his followers, though - as some have repeatedly demonstrated.Maybe that would be an issue if she actually had something to say about religion... or even about spanking/beating...
Pages and pages about vocabulary and word-choice... and how I'm a bad person... because everyone says so.
So yeah, God says something like that, but it's irrelevant in this conversation. My English Degree, however, says to use the word you find most fitting... This isn't about God, it's about Noah Webster.
Edit: I do agree with the insight, however. Once again, it seems you and RA understand human behavior very well.Melissa and JMcFarland - Within a short time period you two have falsely accused oceansnsunsets of not having anything to say about religion (go back and review various posts/forums and you will see that this is not a truthful statement), being "self-righteous" and on a "high horse" - name calling and taunting, etc. When done together, it has the feel of bullying.
Are not the self-righteous condemnations of the nearly 70% of parents who currently spank, and the over 80% of parents who spanked in the near past, glaring hypocrisy? Is it not hypocrisy to sit on a "high horse" oneself and tell various people (at least three or four) that you do not even wish to speak to them for this or that reason, yet tell someone else (one you said you didn't wish to speak to anymore) that she is on a high horse?
Chris Neal aside, are you kind to ANY Christians, JMcFarland? I actually was seeing that Melissa had toned down some of her attacks against Christianity and Christians, which I found commendable, but given the condemnations she's given certain people in recent posts, I see the rage is going to come out in one form or another.
Btw, I am grateful that the topic of spanking came up, and it honestly has encouraged me to avoid it even more than I already do. I am also SINCERELY sorry that the two of you, Melissa and JMcFarland, were "beaten" in childhood, and yes it makes some of your behaviors and statements more sympathetic. BUT spanking does NOT equate to beating, and no the over 80% of our parents did not "beat" or abuse us, and we are not suffering for the spankings received in our childhoods. Please stop all the judgments of people.Where did I accuse oceans of anything? Quote the post, and I may believe you.
I am kind to Chris, Headly, Melissa, Michele, and many more - not to mention the fact that most of the people I live and work with every single day are believers of one kind or another. I cannot tolerate Hypocrisy, personal attacks or threats, regardless of where they come from. I respect them, and they offer the sane respect to me. We slip up sometimes, but we get past it. Say whatever you like, but saying it, and having people agree with you does not make it true.
Additionally, Melissa has asked you several times to not address her, yet you continue to do so. I have asked oceans to not directly address me, yet she has done so again today. Is there something that you think allows you to disrespect respectful requests at will, or do you just do whatever you want regardless of those requests?If you were not referring to oceans being self-righteous and on a high horse, then WHO were you referring to? Please don't play games.
I am glad you are kind to Chris, Headly, Melissa, and Michele (and I mean that in all sincerity). I believe you are kind to most of the Christians you live and work with, but sometimes people have other motives in online forums.
Please no hypocritical judging of anyone - parents who spank, people who speak up for God, the faith and the brethren, those who have said some have the spiritual gift of prophecy (or knowledge and wisdom if more accurate), etc., etc. etc. Then we can believe that you "cannot tolerate hypocrisy, personal attacks or threats, regardless of where they come from".
In a public forum we may address any of the posts. Melissa is free to continue ignoring my posts. I don't think such a request is respectful at all, but rather is controlling in a manner inappropriate for a public forum.I did not say anything about spanking until today. You may be referring to someone else. I am not playing games with you, Cat, I did not say anything about oceans at all. Is there a reason that you take general statements between myself and a friend personally when they were not directed to you or anyone else? That sounds like a personal problem on your end. It's certainly not on mine.
The bottom line is that when many believers behave the exact same way that me and a few people were behaving today, they are congratulated and pat on the back. Very few, if any, Christians will speak out against their bad behavior, or worse - many will even applaud bad behavior as justified against a non believer or a believer who disagrees with a given position. Yet if people on the other "side" do the exact same thing, we are jumped on and called out on it. That is blatant and unapologetic Hypocrisy and it seems like many, many people on your side of the fence are not only blind to it, but willingly encourage it and participate in it.
Since you cannot show me anything I said against oceans that constitutes a personal attack, let me focus on prophecy, and your claim that you're a prophet. I don't believe you. I have no reason to believe you. The Bible says that false prophets are more numerous than real ones, and to test them to determine whether or not they are from God. I cannot test you, and you're a stranger with a blatant disregard to forum rules, requests made of you etc. That doesn't seem particularity in line with the message of Christ portrayed in the Bible. He didn't harass people into listening to him. He didn't push himself on anyone. So I don't believe what appears to be your self-appointed title. If I told you that I was a prophet from a competing religion would you believe me? I highly doubt it. It's very easy to call yourself a prophet. If you want anyone to believe you, you have to prove it. Otherwise no dice. That's the way it goes with skeptics, sorry.
Yes, it is an open forum, yet when a believer told someone several months ago to stop responding to him and they refused, he accused me of harassing him and threatened to call the police on them, and many believers agreed that it amounted to harassment and steps should be taken. Yet another example of "treat others however you want to, but expect to be treated with respect yourself". Can you point out where Jesus said that in the Bible?If you were not referring to oceansnsunsets being on a high horse, then I don't know who you were referring to, given the conversation at the time.
I haven't seen believers saying false things about people as in the comment Melissa made about oceansnsunsets never addressing religion or something of that effect. I've seen believers calling out some behaviors and defending others who are being spoken against. I understand you may consider it simply calling behavior out to speak of high horses and self-righteousness, but I've instead seen a lot of humility in the believers' responses and don't see that most of the believers have been the ones on high horses, but rather most humbly take the stance that they are naturally sinners saved by the grace of our loving Heavenly Father.
Regarding my statement that I and many others in these forums have the spiritual gift of prophecy, I understand that you don't believe me, and really even that you CANNOT believe me if you do not even believe in the Spirit of God. I do hope you understand that when speaking of "prophets" I am referring simply to those who speak the true words of God on here, not to the prophesying of some future event (though some prophets do this, and some consider this only prophecy). I am not implying that prophecy is any greater or lesser than any of the other spiritual gifts (We are told only that prophecy is more beneficial than speaking in tongues to others, and that love is the most excellent of ways). It may be that my gifts and the gifts of several of the believers on here are more those of knowledge and wisdom, though prophecy relates.
Yes, there are many false prophets. Since you don't believe any are true prophets and seek to understand apart from the Spirit of God, then to you all (whether true or false in truth) will obviously be considered false prophets. But for those who do wish to test the "prophets" (or those speaking the true words of God) they need only look at the words of the one speaking to see if it lines up with the Word of God and the Spirit of God. They may even "test" us strangers in this way. I've recently written a 13,400-word hub titled "The Christian Message 101 - Your Questions Answered", and if I am here found to generally speak words that contradict the Word and Spirit of God, then I am shown to be a false "prophet". If what I preach generally lines up with the Word and Spirit of God, and within the entire 13,400 words little error is found (though God alone is without any error), then I am a true prophet, recognized by those with the Spirit of God. This is only by the grace of God, so that I have no room for any boast in this, and only wish to serve the Lord and speak the truth. MANY in these forums speak truth; I am not special.
It wasn't so much that I intentionally disregarded forum rules; I truly am ADD (seriously I couldn't sit through a movie until age 30) and perhaps didn't pay close enough attention to rules (INFPs aren't really rules-focused people, but truth-seekers and idealists). And I'm not going to turn a blind eye to unkind posts, just because someone's found a convenient way to attempt to control and silence me by requesting that I don't speak to them because they "don't speak to 'prophets'". (I didn't see any of the posts you refer to about a believer threatening to call the police on an unbeliever who continued to respond to him/her, so I can't really speak of that situation).
Jesus, though he submitted to the cross as part of God's plan for our redemption, didn't necessarily follow the ways of humans. Anyway, though I follow the Lord, I fall far short of him. I apologized for any way I may have upset you; I truly am not trying to "harass people into listening to" the Lord. We all make mistakes, and for any I've made toward you or others, I genuinely apologize. I truly do TRY to treat all people with respect, though I may fail from time to time.
If you told me you were a prophet from a "religion" but not from our Lord, I would believe something spiritual/supernatural was going on with you - just not from the Light of the world, and I would be most distressed for you and concerned about your spiritual welfare.Let me get this straight. You claim to be a true prophet because you speak the Word of God and the Spirit of God, yet you only except your interpretation of what the true Word of God and the Spirit of God is?
Reminds me of Pat Robertson finally saying something intelligent when to told a caller that those who claim that the universe is 6000 years old makes Christians look silly. Mr Ham had a different interpretation on the matter.Those who speak truth to you by the Spirit within us, and sometimes filling us, have the spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, teaching, and/or preaching (others may have different gifts than these, but in a forum you'll understandably find many with particular gifts that relate to speaking truth). Yes, the true "prophets" speak the true words of God, based on the Word and the Spirit. If something has been revealed by the Spirit, interpretations will be the same amongst believers who follow the Spirit in that particular revelation. If we have not had something revealed to us, our interpretation is only that - our interpretation. I am open about where I speak without revelation. And to be honest, I hunger for the wise believer relying on the Spirit to show me where I speak without knowledge, so that I may become wiser. No one has ALL things revealed to them. BUT the more we rely on the Spirit and submit to him, the more he will guide us and reveal the humanly unknown to us. This is why we study the Word of God and pray in the Spirit.
Perhaps Pat Robertson and Mr. Ham are arguing over "useless genealogies" or perhaps one is speaking with divine revelation and the other not. I think they'd do better not to argue over genealogies and times, and focus instead on what has been revealed - God is the Creator of all things and all things have come into existence by his Word, no matter the time frame, literal or symbolic nature of the Word, etc. I can't say I know; I have no revelation on that particular matter.Yes, that is why your interpretation is just your interpretation. Anyone who claims to have been given "particular gifts ... true prophets ,,, speak the true words of God" certainly cannot be trusted in anything they say, which is why you'll find many here who don't believe a word you say. We know it's just your personal interpretation of the Bible, like so many other different interpretations, all being as invalid as the next version.
I may give you some interpretations that are just that - my interpretations. In fact, no one but the Spirit himself will speak FULL truth to you - "Let God be true and every human a liar".
Still, the Spirit will impart knowledge and wisdom. ALL true believers have the Spirit and will know the key truths - God is the Creator, Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior, etc. How much more wisdom and knowledge are in a believer depends on how much they abide in the Lord and how much the Spirit of the Lord abides in them; what spiritual gifts have been given through the Spirit, etc.Everything you say about your religion is your personal interpretation.
Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense.
Not believing that you have the "spiritual gift of prophecy" has nothing to do with believing in the Spirit of God, it is simply reasonable and logical that you are simply providing us with your personal interpretation of the Bible and nothing more, which is as invalid as any other interpretation.
Believing in the Spirit of God is a prerequisite to believing anyone has the spiritual gift of prophecy or knowledge or wisdom or teaching or preaching or evangelizing or healing or working of miracles or faith or speaking in tongues or interpreting tongues. Yes, as an unbeliever it is "reasonable and logical" for you to believe/assume that I am simply providing you with my personal interpretation of the Bible. And in some places, I have. We do not have full revelation. Every Spirit-led "interpretation" will be valid; all others (whether from a believer or unbeliever) will potentially be invalid.
Spirit-led believers / spiritually-gifted believers (in the areas related to speaking truth) will give you far more SPIRITUAL TRUTH than any other people. We look to a computer programmer for truth regarding computers; We look to a car mechanic for truth regarding vehicles; We look to a gardener for truth about gardening. And we can look to one not only with the Spirit (a believer) but filled with the Spirit for more spiritual truth. A believer should test the spirits and make sure it is truth coming from any preacher, teacher or fellow believer. If an unbeliever is having his or her spiritual eyes/ears opened, they will suddenly begin to hear and recognize the spiritual truths.Yes, because that is exactly what you're doing as are many of the other Christians here.
That is pure nonsense. It is not true at all. It is just you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Cat, I see much of the very same things. There is a lot of attempt at control like with the equivalents of, don't talk to me in a public forum, or I told you to stop addressing me, why do you keep doing what I politely asked you not to!, kind of stuff. (My paraphrase lest I be demanded to find that word for word direct quote.
I often don't ever even see these posts with the request in them, so the stern scoldings come after another "seeming infraction" comes. When you someone points it out as needed, it shines a light onto things, and takes away the power and condemnation factor.,
If you are so truly wrong about anything, someone COULD just ignore you totally OR show how you are wrong, not making an argument, OR accept that you just have different views and mutual respect. The whole agree to disagree thing. I think that would be a better way and think its good to encourage it. That way, people aren't put into weird situations where they couldn't have even known what they did lest they be caught up on every last post in a thread. If they missed the one with the "don't speak to me!" thing, and see it in a later post about how come you are ignoring my requests!...well this is manipulation and control.hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.an act or instance of hypocrisy.
Synonyms
1. See deceit.+1
Yet another case of "If you do it, I will mock you and rail against how unfair and immature you're being but if I do it, it's certainly for good reason so it's definitely okay.
She has no respect for my religion, but expects everyone to bow to hers. Typical.
Look at you judging and then telling others not to judge.
Spank: slap with one's open hand or a flat object, esp. on the buttocks as a punishment:
So a spank is not a beat because it's a slap. Does that mean I can slap an adult to teach them a lesson without any consequences?
Did you know that you can beat a slave as much as you like as long as they don't die? That according to the bible is one of gods rules that we humans had trouble attaining.We all judge behaviors, true, and really if relying on the Spirit so that our judgment of the behavior is sound, then okay. We do sometimes call out behaviors as needed. But it is better to hold off on judging as much as possible; ALL will be revealed at the appointed time anyway. Judging the person beyond the acts is not okay. I know you think I've judged Melissa and JMcFarland, and while I acknowledge judging their judgmental and harsh statements toward others, I have not really judged them in any condemning sense - I still have much hope for the both of them, still feel for them in any troubles they've had, still see strengths, still would put any harsh treatment behind me, and so on.
We (people, the law, etc.) distinguish between spanking children and "beating" them in an abusive manner (though, okay, the word beating is at times used for spanking). The distinction between the spank that is not intended to cause injury and is carefully done so as not to cause bodily injury, needs to be distinguished from the "beating up" of children. Do you really think 70% of parents today and over 80% of our parents were truly harming their children? I've expressed my own discomfort with spanking my children and leaned toward avoiding it, and honestly lean that way more and more. BUT the distinctions remain and the accusations are not okay.
Since you have no similar authority over any adult as you do a child (with authority as a boss, etc. being quite different), and since our laws do not permit it, no you can't slap any adult even on the butt as a form of teaching them a lesson. And in some places the law does not permit spanking of children. While I'm somewhat conflicted on the spank / don't ever spank debate, I can definitely say that I wouldn't be too sorry if the law said we can no longer spank our children UNLESS this was used to remove children from their homes (which would do SO much more harm to the children than being spanked), and I think perhaps it could cut down on some abuse.
Regarding OT laws about slaves, there is no condoning of slavery, but only that which prescribed the death penalty if a slave was beaten to death, yet not if a slave did not die when beaten – this does not condone slavery any more than allowing a certificate of divorce (because of hardened hearts) meant that God condoned divorce. God’s message to us has been that he is with those who are mistreated, that he will uplift them and that in the end the “greatest will become the least” and the “least will become the greatest”.Thank you for sharing the careful distinctions that you do. That seems very fair. I think some have some strong beliefs despite the facts of these matters.
So you don't judge others you simply tell them not to judge and sometime tell them they will burn in hellfire? Alrighty then.
Spanking is used to cause pain and humiliation, both of which is harmful. Where does a spanking end and a beating begin because we clearly have many adults saying they were beaten as children, but nobody say they beat their children? Perhaps the destination lies with the child's perception of the spanking. My own mom slapped me across the face in front of my friends when I was a child for something I didn't do. Do you think she thought she was just spanking?
Right the authority of a boss is different because the employee can quit while the child can't, but yet we have laws in place to protect the adult employee.
Sorry the bible condones slavery, you may not like it but it does. It describes who you can keep and a slave and how badly you can beat that slave. There is even the story of how Abraham raped his wife's slave and when the slave tried to leave God approached her and told her to go back. You see the OT is slaveowner ethics and the NT is slave ethics. But even then the NT doesn't say to not keep slaves, it simply says it's hard for the rich to get into heaven, make the slaves happy with being slaves. Classic manipulation. Why do you think so many slave owners from the south read the bible to slaves? Pathetic really.I haven't told anyone they'll burn in hell because I don't personally know who will and who won't accept Jesus Christ up until their last breath, and I don't really know the details of hell (how much symbolism versus how literal; eternal death versus eternal living in hell; etc.). I struggle with the idea of hell and PLEAD with my Father to be merciful with the WORST of sinners because I can't bare the thought of people even momentarily in pain and suffering.
Please see my other post regarding slavery.
I haven't spanked my son often, but I can assure you when I did it was NOT to cause humiliation or really even the pain - it was to set boundaries, etc. (I used my hand to ensure I wasn't causing much pain, and since I have a low pain tolerance and am not physically strong, I figured this would be a good way to avoid too much for him). When my son refused to go to time-out, ran instead, laughed, etc., he got spanked. I subsequently gave him the choice of going to time-out or getting a spanking. I HATED spanking him. But I also hate to see all the defiance in our kids these days. But like I said, I don't have a peace about the use of spanking, and honestly have here been encouraged to avoid it even more. Thankfully, he doesn't really require much discipline and responds well to reasoning.
I can't speak for your mom, but I hope you have forgiven her. We all make mistakes. My mother was at times emotionally abusive during her episodes of depression and in response to my extreme defiance that exasperated her ("I wish you'd never been born", etc.), and in junior high we watched a special about emotional abuse called "Things my mother said to me", and sure enough she'd said pretty much every one of them to me. BUT I understand her state at the time, I understand how difficult and defiant I was, and I sincerely forgave her. I'm thankful I did because we had a good relationship later and being only 25 when she died, I didn't have much time to forgive and move on with her.That all seems reasonable and I'm glad you are thinking more about spanking. I've got three teenage boy in the house 15, 17 and 19 so do you mind if I give you a little advice? If you do then don't read the next paragraph.
If the time out isn't working find something he likes (like TV or video games, but not books) and tell him that if he doesn't behave in a reasonable manner you will take those things away for a given time. Then tell him you are going to count to 5 and if he doesn't control his behaviour you will take those things away from him. One, Two, Three, I've never gotten to five. After a while all I would have to do is start counting. To this day if I tell my boys to come to the table to eat and they don't and I start counting they come running. Kids don't really understand time like we do. So if you tell them to behave they may think they will but not have a time frame. Give them a time frame by counting.Of course, spanking doesn't work, and the fact that he may have chosen to be spanked over a time and and the fact he laughed at the spankings are signs he no longer respected anything you said, he became defiant just like you were when you were a kid and you were spanked. Notice how the vicious cycle of physical punishment keeps going but never works?
You mean, like when you were naturally defiant as a child?Goodness gracious. Although this whole spanking debate has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, I'm going to comment on it. Reading through the discussion has left me pretty much just scratching my head.
The reason that the majority of parents spank (in my experience) is because they believe they have no other way of getting through to their child. These have tended (in my experience) to be the same parents who are woefully inconsistent in their discipline techniques. If a child won't go into a time-out, it's up to the parent to consistently make that the only option until the child complies. This is done with simply returning the child to his/her time-out spot until he/she recognizes that there is no option but to remain and suck it up.
Much of the reason that children don't accept the disciplinary actions that their parents aim to enforce is that they've likely gotten seventeen threats of time-out without having been actually put into one. If that's the case, what makes that parent think that threatening a spanking if they don't go into time-out is actually going to result in the child doing what they've told them to do?
Spanking IS an act of violence, no matter how well-explained it is or how gently it's done. Be consistent. If you tell a child there's a consequence for their action, and they do it anyway, then that consequence needs to be followed through on - BY THE PARENT.
Why do people see spanking as an act of violence? Because generally, it's a parent putting their hands on a child after they've been pushed to a point of anger because of a child's defiance. It is never right, no matter whose hands are being put on whom, to lay your hands on another living being in anger.
In addition to that, parents seem to think that spanking is allowed up to a certain age. Those of us against it really do believe that children only learn from that as they get older to be afraid of the people who are supposed to love them and PROTECT them. Spanking a child isn't protecting them from anything. It's a simple action that a parent believes shows them how unacceptable their behavior is. Oddly enough, let that same child come home from pre-school with a note that they hit another child, and the parent is upset, and then hits them to show them how wrong it is to hit people. Do we see the irony here?
Some of us were beaten as children, some got an occasional spanking, others had parents who never laid a hand on us while we were growing up. At the end of the day, though, I bet every one of us grew up wanting to do certain things differently with our own children. Odd how many parents get upset, though, when their children exhibit behavior that the parents have (perhaps subconsciously) modeled for their children. My mother often said that it surprised her as a parent how much worse HER faults looked on me.
That being said, we don't beat prisoners. We try to rehabilitate them to the best of our ability. Their privileges and freedoms are removed from them as a consequence of their crimes. But we think there's nothing wrong with putting hands on our children for what is completely and entirely NORMAL behavior for them.
People who lay their hands on their children do so because they have run out of reason and patience. At the point that you feel it necessary to do that, it's time to let someone else supervise your children until you're more clear minded and have thought of something that does NOT include violence to help them learn a lesson.
*Edit: Also, if a parent doesn't think that they can reason with a child about their behavior because of their young age and limited understanding, what in hell makes them think that a "well explained" spanking is an option?Thank you. I really feel that way. And I think it came from my mother. I was spanked probably twice in my life. Once when my father was VERY angry (read scared because I'd done something that put me in danger). I don't even remember the other event. But my parents grew into different people eventually and realized that I learned SO well from words and reason and attention and consistency. At that point, they decided to use THOSE tools for discipline. And I turned out pretty good for it.
Perhaps Christianity isn't so much the problem. Perhaps it's ignorance. We seem to have as many Christians here making perfect sense and we do people making perfect sense. It just seems to me that some people are able to think and reason while others are not.
Hi Motown2Chitown. I understand your strong feelings against spanking and you make some good points here. Yet I don't know that we can make these stereotypes and judgments of the nearly 70% of parents who currently spank - inconsistency, spanking because they've run out of patience, spanking out of anger. For example, it's quite possible to spank with no anger and I've heard some parents say they will ONLY spank if they are NOT angry.
You said, "Much of the reason that children don't accept the disciplinary actions that their parents aim to enforce is that they've likely gotten seventeen threats of time-out without having been actually put into one. If that's the case, what makes that parent think that threatening a spanking if they don't go into time-out is actually going to result in the child doing what they've told them to do?" In my case (that seemed to inspire your words), I've strived to avoid the "seventeen threats syndrome" popular these days, so that hasn't been the reason my son refused to go to time out. He has had periods of testing the limits and consequences, though he is generally well behaved. The threat of a spanking DID get my son to go to time-out every time for numerous months, then half a year later or so he might test it again and refuse to go. One spanking would get a multitude of complied with instructions. And I have been relatively consistent in his discipline - He has been consistently put in time-out as the predominant method of discipline, with spankings reserved for a back-up or a most serious offense. More important, the problematic acts have been consistently disciplined. The reason for his discipline (generally time-out) is ALWAYS explained to him, and he has good understanding for his age.
As I've said I haven't had peace about the spankings and am planning to avoid them. I'm thinking I'll rely more on removing a favorite item, as Rad Man suggested. I do plan to use both time-outs and the removal of an item, and I think it is more the consistency of being disciplined (rather than consistency in the type of discipline) that is important.I hear what you're saying, Cat. I really do believe that consistency is key. In a way I was speaking to what you said about spanking your son because he wouldn't go into time-out. I have been continually amazed at the success of discipline without spanking by parents who simply don't give up. They refuse to allow their children to be more...I hate to say defiant...maybe - in control - than they are. They just seem to be masters in letting their children know, without ever laying a hand, that there is no way around the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, I don't believe that every parent who has ever spanked their child is either a bad person or a bad PARENT, but learning to discipline your children without ever hurting them physically makes both you and them better and stronger people. And in the end, shows more love than the alternative. And there are no happier and better disciplined children in the world than those who have a constant experience of real love from their parents.
All this is very interesting reading for me, Mo. Several times in the past couple of years, younger people have looked to me as a grandfather, although I have no children of my own. It warms the heart each time, but I often feel at a loss to know how to apply the firm decision effectively. Bit of a hit-and-miss (no pun intended!), trial and error usually, but then it's very difficult to undo an error when it comes to relationships.
I firmly believe, jonny, that if we are going to err, it's always better to err on the side of kindness and gentleness. Yes, a lack of discipline can be difficult for people, but it IS something that can be taught, even to adults. The absolute best thing we can do is to make the consequences of actions VERY clear, and allow a child to naturally suffer those consequences. Of course, I do not mean in any way that might be dangerous to them. But better, IMO, to be considered a soft touch than a hard, mean person.
Can I just tell you also that I absolutely love talking with you here?
Sure, they'll say that, anything to justify the abuse.
Speaking of time outs.... I had a neighbor once who had three young boys, and I had my one son. We were talking once about time outs. She had VERY energetic boys and they would get into trouble like any kids will. Once, she said she does time outs, and I asked her how she keeps them on a time out. She said well you have to set them down on their time out and I asked how she gets them to stay sitting on the time out then. She said they often don't and when I asked how she got them to sit back down she said, she keeps setting them down as many times as it takes to make them realize they aren't going to win this battle. So she didn't believe in spanking, but had to literally wear herself out trying to enforce a time out at times. In an effort to not spank, the discipline took a lot longer and a lot more hands on picking the child up from wherever they were to set them back down, 2, 3, 4, 10 times. I remember thinking, wow, well that is one way to enforce a time out!. She was a college professor and loved her kids but was very very stern and very consistent. Later on, they listened to her because they knew what was coming otherwise. Some might say she shouldn't have put her hands on them in any way that they didn't want, and I wonder at people here what they think about her method.
Edit: To add, sometimes, these kids were SO upset and having an absolute fit over these being put back down over and over into a time out position. It was a huge scene. I thinks he felt she had no option but that and didn't believe in spanking either. I know of other parents though that think what she put herself and the child through in these instances too be much worse than a simple swat and being over and done with it would have been, OR something else, etc. It was a huge amount of dedication given to helping the child see they were NOT in charge. Which is often what these things boil down to often with some kids anyway.Well, as a parent, I'd say that you know it takes that kind of dedication to parent in the first place. To parent well, it takes more. That's how I see it. I know for a fact that it isn't easy. I lived with a dear friend who had three boys, all three with ADD and two with RAD. The two with reactive attachment disorder were on opposite ends of the spectrum. One got too attached and the other was never able to bond properly. When they lived a very structured life, with clear rules and an understanding of consequences, they both did fairly well. When the actual spankings started, all hell broke loose. While I know for certain that this women loved these boys beyond reason, she eventually ran out of patience and let her anger and frustration get the best of her. That's when the boys went over the edge, and that's when she would be the first to tell you that she completely lost control of them.
Consistency is HUGE.
If you have a set, predictable schedule with established rules and routine, you may not have to discipline at all... if you do, it's much less infrequent.
I will say that I see everyone talking about finding a technique that works... which is kinda insane in itself. If the child only breaks one rule ever, then I guess you only need one discipline ever. If you use that one method in every situation, it's crazy... most of the times the "punishments" have absolutely nothing to do with the "crime". There is no learning.
Why, for example, would I put a kid in time out for coloring on the walls? He/She wasn't out of control, they didn't need a few minutes to get a hold of themselves... What they need is a bucket of water and a rag, they've got some cleaning to do.
Time outs were always cool downs for my kids, not really discipline. It's a place to reset so you stop a behavior... not really a punishment.I agree it takes that kind of dedication as a parent. As for your friend and her boys, wow. That would be an absolutely difficult task. I am a true believer in the idea that each child is different and must be treated accordingly.
Its hardest when life circumstances are difficult. I can't begin to imagine what she went through. I know for us, we pretty much knew what we could handle, and it sometimes was still more than we think we can. God has helped me along the way, and being educated on it all as much as I could along the way, and family, etc. I am thankful, and my heart goes out to people that have tough situations like that or more so.
While I admire her dedication, time-outs obviously weren't the best solution... (Obviously they were better than beatings though).
If it takes that much energy, it's not the right solution.Yes, one must have patience with their kids and not give into the easy way of hitting them.
Hi Mo, I have found that consistency and follow through are the best things. Kids will test otherwise all the way up the line, whatever it is. You can see this sometimes with the parents that count, "1.....2.....3...." and the child will wait until the last number or longer to TEST the parent. I learned early on that wasn't a route I wanted to take. It was more of a game, one none of us liked.
I know a ton of people that were physically spanked and sometimes beaten that are wonderful people, and know some that got no spankings and have still never really grown up and wonder why the world is the way it is and wonder what is wrong with everyone else.
I actually know of people in the past, that took a very great amount of patience in regards to spanking their child, it was never done as a last resort out of sheer frustration. Which is the worst way, when a parent is at their wits end. I do agree too that if there is severe anger rising up or some such thing, to get away and let someone else help for a bit, take a breather.
It is a hard thing to do what is the most consistent and best things for your kids, but to me it comes with parenting. It can be sheer exhaustion at times when they were little. As they are older the things change and the methods do also.
When there is respect all around, even if there is some consequence, it all goes a lot smoother as they don't doubt you love them and are just doing what you said you would. A simple cause and effect. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this rather heated subject.These sentiments are very similar to my own. I do agree with Melissa that there are other things to look into if the time-out isn't working as well as it could.
We did a lot of talking things through, my kids understood we loved them and that there were consequences for them and us too as adults for our own things. I had a post way back that goes into more detail about my philosophy etc. The examples I gave were for a friend of mine, and we rarely had to use the time outs for us, they were annoying to the kids, lol.
Most things were a cause and effect, which echoes how life works most often. Some in the past disagreed with me about reasoning with the kids, but it actually did great. I have a feeling though that I had it a little easy sometimes, but then there were other times. The saddest things I heard about that we were really laid back on were potty training. I have a whole philosophy on that and it worked very well for my boys and no drama, or accidents, no need to be "in trouble".... I am married to a great guy too that supported every part from day one. I can't complain and am very thankful. It has been interesting at least, to see different people weigh in on things. I think I missed a lot of posts still though I have been trying to catch up.
Trying to be the a living example of "how to be" may be the biggest challenge but one of the best teaching instruments for kids. Kids DO tend to mimic what they see and learn from it even if we tell them "don't do as I do.." etc. They adopt our ways, and so this is my ongoing and current way to be better and learn to do better all around. Its all a challenge but worth it.
My son isn't defiant generally speaking. He's actually respectful and well behaved for a five-year-old (still preschooler who will start kindergarten in the Fall). He had periods of defiance (went in cycles, seemed to be periods of testing). There were times he refused to go to time-out over the years (a few times just refused; a few times made a game out of it - laughing, running, etc.). He's been spanked infrequently. I haven't liked the use of spanking, and like I said, I've here been encouraged to avoid the use.
We speak of "vicious cycles" with abuse; it's not really accurate or appropriate terminology for non-abusive physical punishment (and in the USA the spankings I received up until age five and the spankings my son has occasionally received do NOT classify as abuse).
Yes, I was particularly defiant toward my mother when I hit adolescence (by age 12), but it wasn't so much the norm then. And yes, I think much of it was natural for me - I believe I have a genetic tendency toward oppositional defiance (I also believe I was clinically depressed at age 12, with irritability, etc. being a part of that). Some of it was environmental - my mother (single parent) was in a depression and rather neglectful when I was twelve; she swung radically from being strict to extremely lenient (upon giving up); she was at that time emotionally abusive in response to my defiance, etc. I don't believe the spankings prior to age five were the significant factor. I was walking apart from God during my adolescence, seemed to be under much demonic attack (piercing headaches if I tried to read my Bible, so that I gave up entirely; abnormal interest in the demonic and perversions, etc.). I am thankful that my difficulties turned out to be useful in my career as suicide/crisis therapist, helping the youth I worked with in juvenile detention.
In general, kids are more disrespectful, arrogant and defiant now than when I was a child/youth, as can be seen in schools, daycares, homes, etc. I think there are a variety of reasons for this (lack of spankings MAY be one of several; I don't know). The lack of a consistent caregiver, time in daycares, etc. have been mentioned in this forum, and I agree are likely an important factor. I think even the overstimulation from the womb on (constant TV, loud toys, games) and our diets (hormones, toxins, etc.) contribute to all this. Anyway, it all fulfills the prophecy in Scripture: "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power.... always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:1-5,7)Yes, the do classify as abuse because all physical punishment is abuse.
By what guideline? What evolutionary mechanism is it that determines something to be abusive? Maybe if we can understand how this standard "naturally" came about, we can better define it.
Melissa, I'm having that can't see every post issue, but regarding time-outs not always being appropriate: I agree with that also. I know that with a lot of kids, making them "pay restitution" for whatever they've done is sometimes the best thing in the world.
Lily fears no punishment... But she loves her some stickers. I actually got a lesson in parenting from spongebob (long story if you don't watch the show) she has a chart with stickers for good behaviors, for a lot of minor infractions the "punishment" is losing a sticker off the chart. Even mentioning the possibility of losing a sticker is horrible to her. I figure we got about another 3 months before we lose that one... I might be wrong though, considering we've been using it since potty-training. (Which by the way was completed in three days with the sticker chart after almost a year of beating our heads off the wall)
Personally, I feel like you gotta do what works and you ABSOLUTELY gotta know your kid.
The most significant thing I can do for Jasmine is to put her to work (like the work I normally do around the house), or deprive her of her cell phone or PS3 privileges.Teenage girls are alien creatures to me... I've spent too long making them scatter rather than trying to understand them. Right now, they are the enemy in my battle against impending grandmotherhood.
Discipline for my teenage boys has often involved denying them access to, embarrassing them in front of, or intruding upon their pursuit of the teenage girl though.
You've got all my respect.We can't embarrass her. She just rolls her eyes or joins the fun...lol
I remember my mom telling my sister something in the heat of battle that I've never forgotten...the words OR the lesson.
My sister yelled at my mom once that she had no idea what it was like to be 15! My mother told her - very calmly - that if that were the case, she wouldn't live to see 16.
Spanking does not classify as abuse within the USA's legal definitions or within the mental health field.
Perhaps not, but neither of these can speak definitively on the effects on each individual child. If a child is negatively affected, it is abuse. No matter what the law or mental health profession says
32 other countries have already banned spanking because it is indeed abuse, the USA is simply behind the times, still living in barbarism in this regard, most likely due to the overwhelming Christian population who are in favor of beating their kids.
This too shall come to pass.
Yes, the mental health field considers it abuse.
Equally, I suggest, it is not acceptable to "beat" anything into a child's brain. For example, it's long been accepted that you don't force a child who is left-handed to become right handed. You don't force a child who wets the bed to stand in front of others and be ridiculed or shamed. Equally, you don't force a child into heterosexual life. You allow your child to develop naturally, slowly, with parental support and good communication. And without bullying. Also, you teach a child some good, honest, fair and broad understanding of religious matters, but then allow him/her to choose - and not complain if he/she decides there is no "god" worth worshiping.
Edit: In my honest opinion.I agree with much of what you say here, Jonny - I even happen to have a left-handed son who wets the bed and I would absolutely not engage in these types of behaviors. And if he turns out gay, I'll leave that to God and will consider him the same as anyone else. BUT I am bringing my children up in the Lord. Yet I know this is not what will save them - it is God who will save them through Jesus Christ. And I trust that he will because they have been committed to him and he is able to keep that which is committed to him, so that I have great peace about this. They may stray, but he will ultimately keep them as his own and I will hold him to his promises to me.
Ha, and how will you hold God to a promise you think he made? What leverage do you have?
My leverage is his word and his promise - He is the one who said he is able to keep that which is committed to him, he is the one who made the promise and who does not lie but keeps all his promises. I believe him, that's all. He gives the leverage himself.
So at what point are you going to demand that he keep his word? Will there be a law suite? Do you know how many times I've seen Christians get angry with God because they thought they did everything right and something still went wrong. Sorry, you can demand nothing. Christian tell us all the time that we can't begin to understand something like God that is so above us and yet you are going to hold him to his word? Please.
He's my Father, I'm his child - I hold him to his promises here and now and always. And even if someone could bring a law suite against God, why would I do that to my Father? Anyway, since he is the One "who keeps every promise", there will be no need. He WILL keep my children who I have entrusted to him, even if they stray here on earth and I don't see it until we're in heaven.
Now I admit funny things sometimes happen when you hold God to his promises, and the supernatural realm really is far outside our understanding and grasp (or mine in my current state anyway). Once about a detention manager who went around work stating that the bible was nothing but a bunch of made-up stories, I prayed something like this: You said it is not your will that any should perish AND you said if we ask anything according to your will, that we will have whatever we ask of you; therefore, according to your will I claim "Stan's" soul for Christ. Well, I prayed it many hours before bedtime and thought nothing of it as I went to bed. I was not in a particularly stressed point of life then, had no nightmares during these years, and never experienced repeated continued dreams. Well, in the night I jolted upright in the bed, staring at the ceiling, seeing hundreds of demons hovering over me with a single thought in my mind - "The demons are here, and they're pissed off because of Stan". I prayed God's protection and presence and fell back asleep. A second time, I awoke upright, staring up at the ceiling, seeing hundreds of demons hovering above there, with the same singular thought in my head that the demons were here, all angry because of Stan. Again I prayed God's presence and protection and fell back to sleep. A third time, I awoke upright, staring at the ceiling and seeing the hundreds of demons hovering there. I said to God, "If ever I needed your protection and presence, it's now"; then I fell peacefully to sleep. And what of "Stan" these days? I hadn't seen him for quite some time, but recently heard he was having severe depression and cried out during work "God, help me! Help me, God!" He has begun to speak of God favorably and is looking toward him. I believe I will see my brother in heaven. There is one person in these forums I prayed a similar prayer for, but I'm not sure I had the same faith as when I prayed for "Stan". I'm working on being a "prayer warrior", but it's not always easy.
Yes, I know Christians get angry with God, and I have certainly been angry with him before - even though I knew my problems at the time were the result of my own actions, I was angry he didn't rectify them as quickly as I wanted (silly, I know). I don't think we ever do "everything right" or that its even possible as human beings, and things will go wrong as long as we're in the current earth. I demand only what my Father has given me the permission and right to demand.
Yes, He is too far above us for us to FULLY grasp, but like I've said before - even infants and toddlers know their parent according to their own capacity to know.
Ok, so it seems, cat333, that the only difference between yours and my opinion is the christianity bit. So be it. We will have to agree to differ. There is no way I will take that on board, and there is probably no way you will accept my standpoint. No matter. The world is big enough for all of us.
JCL
yes we can all fit in the world: atheists, theists, and of course hyena feeders.You are kindhearted and very respectful, jonnycomelately. As they say, "never say never"... Who knows but that the Lord will reveal himself to you one day? I pray it will be so.
You are kindhearted and very respectful, Cat333. As they say, "never say never"... Who knows but maybe the truth will reveal himself to you one day? I hope it will be so.
Cute! And if I had only a "second-hand faith" - if I knew only ABOUT God, but I hadn't experienced him myself and didn't personally KNOW HIM - then it might be possible.
An atheist comes from a place without the experience of the supernatural and asks how anyone can know, and in the natural naturally finds the supernatural hard (impossible) to believe, or may simply decide upon unbelief because he/she has no reason yet to believe. A person following false teachings generally will have no experience with the supernatural, though they MAY have experienced the supernatural within the demonic realm. A "believer" who is only following what they have been taught has no personal experience with God yet and they MAY turn away from the faith. But the ones who have already experienced God themselves, how can they turn from what they already have and deny that which has already been revealed to them?
Jonny, I totally agree with you.
I think every last person will be brought up from childhood on, in a certain way and ultimately will make their own decisions as they mature. This actually brings up a very good point about parents learning early on to "let go" of their children.
I have done a some study on early childhood development and one of the books I happened to read after my first child was born, was talking about mentally letting children go from a much earlier age than we often think. Parents often don't even think about this until they have to, like in later teen years often or some don't until the child leaves for college or their own life! This is normal, and out of necessity often. When I say "letting them go", allowing them to grow up within your rules and parameters but emotionally knowing they are their own and separate person, in a very healthy way I mean. Some parents get way too attached to their kids emotionally and actually have a truly hard time letting them go and it causes crises of sorts for people.
It can come out in all kinds of arguments and fights, and what is usually desired by the parents overall, the opposite is achieved. If we hold on too tight to children and try to control them where and when we shouldn't be, this can stunt them and hurt our relationships with them on into adulthood and adult relationships. Hope this makes sense.
Thanks again for your thoughts and observations in what you are seeing. You are not alone in what you see as bullying types of behavior. There is a lot of classic text book stuff going on, and I thank you for trying to help encourage "better." Missed a lot today and trying to catch up on and read the posts from posters that want to discuss or are open to discussing with me. Your fairness is like a breath of fresh air almost to me.
And just pointing out... the stuff you got mad at earlier... you're doing the same thing now.
I guess object lessons get missed completely sometimes.
I agree but this also could be seen as completely ignoring the cause, and immoral equating that was done to parents everywhere that ever spanked. (That was my issue the most) That doesn't surprise me one bit at this point but I hold out hope still one day people will care.
I am interested in looking at the more full picture, an explanation of what fully occurred and that people were NOT wrong in what they said. I'm keying in on the reasons why and the behavior that seems to nearly admittedly almost enjoy said game that results in real life repercussions for people.
I don't think it's clever or funny and do think some other things explain it.In other words, when speaking the truth about the situation/person, the truth was so bad it was considered actionable. THIS says a lot in itself, lol.
Not acted upon because it wasn't true, but the truth was so bad, it basically can't be said "out loud" as it were. Very telling. (Some of the words actions were repeated back, it was too awful, but not incorrect.).
I can't make this stuff up, it all right there.
Mixed emotions about that one. I happen to agree but I see it as a point that can be spread pretty evenly around.
But every should know that Jesus came to this earth to forgive our sins and that why we must beleive in him and have faith......thats all....Amen
We do know that's the story. We don't buy it. That's why we're atheists, those without belief in a god or gods.
Oooooh look - another sock puppet that signed up to defend the faith LOL
Now, now. ... we don't know he's a sock puppet. He could have just randomly signed up and immediately found his way to the very same forum that multiple Christians were so recently banned from, and it could all be just a coincidence. Probably unlikely, but still possible.
Not everyone thinks like you and when you assume and let us see it, it's telling
Awwww. Sorry if the obvious truth bothers you. You know who it is?
You missed the point , and this is really classic coming from you especially. How dumb of you really think we are?
People are so used to your "you's" they just know and ignore no matter the current face. I'm still just knowing I'm talking to you. Combinations of words,manner and mannerisms are like fingerprints.
Too silly!So - yes - you do know who this is?
I have a sock puppet theory: both RA and Mark Knowles have a highly distinctive spelling for the word magic ("majick") and both are bigoted against religions.
Hmmmm, that's interesting and something I've never thought of, but when was the last time you saw Mark Knowles in these forums? You see to be a sock puppet you need to be participating as two people in the forums.
Six weeks ago Mark posted on the Hitler was a christian thread. RA has been posting since before that time.
Did RA post on that same forum? Are they posting on the same forums at the same time? Because if so we will have to give him a good finger waging.
Yes, he did but Mark deleted his comment. Probably forgot to sign out then back in.
I just got savaged by another one em on another thread that has been dormant for months. A atheist called Insane Mundane.
It is my opinion that there are one or two dangerously obsessive atheists here masquerading as several people.
Also, I thought the definition of sock puppet was anyone pretending to be somebody else regardless of time limits? Either way they aggregate in atheists feeding frenzies to try and run ragged newcomers and the more innocent unaware members.
If only Jesus had come to be an editor. Even I would give an Amen! to that.
Welcome to Hubpages, Arthor.
My big issue here is that it's all very well any person having such a belief as you have stated, but there is room in this world for people of all persuasions. The adamant claim that the christian story is absolute truth and excludes other possibilities, in other cultures, is just not on as far as I am concerned.
I speak from an atheist point of view. Yet I can sit and watch the religious people to-and-fro with the atheist and laugh. If there was such an entity as "God," he/she/it would be laughing with me, too. If there was such an entity as "Jesus" (in what ever language you wish to speak it), then I would give up Harry Potter books as pure fiction, not as fact - as they truly are, because everything stated in them can be proven to my satisfaction; contrary to what you can do with the bible.I hear you Jonny, and in fairness, we need to realize that almost all of us have a kind of absolute truth we believe in. Some say this or that is a better way. They are absolutely convinced that how they believe and think is the right way. This is what we all do in some form or fashion. Like with Arthor there, IF someone were to believe he is wrong, they might absolutely believe his views are wrong. That is an absolute view too, that might be right or wrong, if that makes sense?
either way, living in ignorance doesnt mean you are safe. i would urge every human to seek to have a fellowship with God. above all,be careful to what we say. God can not be mocked.
Why do you think atheists are ignorant? Can you prove it? Does it make us ignorant because we don't believe in your God? Are you likewise ignorant for not believing in any of the other proposed gods out there, or are you just using special pleading for YOUR God
good question. to start with, there is only 1 God. we have 2 sided coins worldwide. and in my case the two sides are flesh and spirit. if you ignore to hear and obey the word of God you are just being ignorant to the obvious.
How do you know the is only one God? Keep in mind, please, that you cannot logically use the Bible to prove the Bible true. That is a circular argument and is a logical fallacy.
Do you not find it rude to classify an entire group of people that you are not a part of as ignorant for not believing the same thing you do?everything i talk about concerning this 1 God its out of what i have witnessed and experienced. i have tested GOD. i dont find it rude of me to say some people are ignorant. though in this i stand to be corrected.
And why should I believe you? You are a stranger on the Internet. Personal experiences cannot be proven or demonstrated to be true to anyone else, so they cannot be used to accuse atheists of being ignorant because we are not privy to YOUR personal experiences. The reason they are called personal expedience is because they're personal, are they not?
im not asking you to believe me.what im trying to put across is,the only experience i have with God its the life experience i have. or should i use another life i havent lived yet? you believe in nothing? you live the day as it comes? i doubt that mr. and yes. i am a strannger online.......hehe.....
Sorry, but that is a married women you are talking to. Just a heads up. A simple sorry may help.
im not asking you to believe me.what im trying to put across is,the only experience i have with God its the life experience i have. or should i use another life i havent lived yet? you believe in nothing? you live the day as it comes? i doubt that mr. and yes. i am a strannger online.......hehe.....
I tried to test God, too, but He never showed up for the exam.
YOU tested a God that said he can't be tested?
i should have used the word 'i have experienced God. i know is goodness
Tested and experienced are nothing alike. Many here have told me God can't be tested, that's why the studies on prayer don't pan out. Honesty is very important.
i have tried God and regardless of how you try to twist it, one thing its for sure. GOD is there and he ought to be praised and respected. and i will repeat this. there are two beings in each person. spiritual and flesh.
There are two beings in each person. imagination and flesh.
good. you are fully aware of flesh and the one you are referring to imagination its now the being called spiritual being. both beings are at war constantly to out do each other. its very important if you could equip your spiritual being. he is superior when well fed with the right ingredients......its joyful life
People do it all the time. The Bible is shot through with stories of people testing God.
So it's only when we test for God and can't find him that we can't test for him?
Huh? I'm afraid I didn't understand that one.
Okay, so if I say God we should be able to see God by testing prayer, I'm told that God can't be tested for and the bible says that exactly, but we have people saying that they tested God and he showed himself to them or tested positive. So it's okay to test God if the result is positive?
The Bible does say to test the Spirits. When it says "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" that means don't be constantly trying silly stuff just to prove God exists, or don't be constantly making demands on God as if He owed you something. People did it anyway, and sometimes the results still turned out okay (ref. Gideon.) That doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. It does mean that people do it.
I was about to reply to Rad Man, but I see you have said it better than I was going to.(hope this isn't too much praise).
Sorry, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" does not say anything about silly stuff? Do you see anything about silly stuff in that quote?
We can use the results of our test if they turn out positive but if they turn out negative we can't and shouldn't be testing?You've completely missed the point. God never said don't ask Him for stuff. He absolutely wants us to ask Him for stuff, we are supposed to depend on Him for everything. But at the same time we are not to sit back and expect He will deliver us anything we ask, no matter how frivolous.
Testing the spirit(s) is about making sure that what we hear or read comes from God. That involves prayer, study, meditation and asking God.Yes, the Bible says, "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." Many forget the delight yourself part of that verse.
Or drowning or pressing to death.
The best of all was the inquisition; the pain could be made to last for days and days there!Who's forgetting? I'm just (again) not making a false equivalence.
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:14)
You refer, of course, to those that object to god's work in the inquisition. Eventually they ended up on the rack themselves, but prior to that they were fighting against the holy church, doing god's work - just as you say their deeds led them to their rightful reward under the inquisitors holy work.
It all depends on which side of the fence you're on, doesn't it? If you believe god is once more ordering his people to kill, as He did in the OT, then the inquisition was a good thing. If you believe He is a god of love in spite of His temper tantrums then it was undoubtedly the work of Satan and his minions.
That's an odd juxtaposition. Where'd you get that?
For 1800 years Christians have shown their "delight" by burning atheists. Odd you choose to ignore that fact.
You mean odd that you choose to ignore that I've never ignored that fact? I agree. But that's not really dealing with what Sir Dent said, or the actual verse of the Bible. Delighting yourself in the Lord is to revel in His presence and take joy from Him. Because some did it that way does not mean that all would do it that way, or even a majority.
And yeah, I've said, often, that Christianity has a bloody history. But you say I ignore it. Yes, odd, I agree.Even now your brothers and sisters in Christ are burning witches in Africa. Never met a joyful Christian myself. Most of them seem pretty joyless and self righteous.
Changing the subject does not prove your point. I said that Christianity has a bloody history. You said I've ignored that fact. We can't both be right. And the record is not my side. Ask JMcFarland.
Well - you clearly choose to ignore that fact. If you did you would reject this irrational belief system immediately based on the way many of it's adherents have acted and still are acting.
That's a false assumption. You ignore other reasons why I might not find the belief system irrational.
Oh dear.You think this is a rational belief system? Guess you haven't read that bible after all.
That would again be a false assumption. I've been over it. Accept it or don't but don't tell me what I think and why. That is so beyond arrogant as to be beneath contempt.
Aww - when you are so readable and get your beliefs from a book that any fool can read? lol
Wow, man. I can't believe you really just gave me that opening...
After that display, I take it back. I can totally believe you gave me that opening. And you asked for this...
RA: "Since you get your beliefs from a book that any fool can read?"
Me: "Since you've read it, obviously any fool certainly can."
Ba dum dum.
Yes, you have acknowledged Christianity's bloody history several times. I haven't heard you address its bloody present very much though.
What do you think about what's going on in Kenya, Africa right now? The witch hunt against Children and the Elderly, specifically. They're hunting down people, torturing them, disfiguring them and in some cases, burning them alive. All as a result of the spread of Western, Christian missionaries - like my parents were. Or Uganda, where the fight for the death penalty for homosexuals is a DIRECT result of three New York, far right Christian missionaries who encouraged government leaders how dangerous homosexuality is, spewing false information about "gay recruitment" of children, etc which has led to several instances of mob mentality or the threat of being thrown into a Ugandan prison for life for being gay.
Christianity can't do that in the West anymore and get away with it. Western Christianity, as my history professor used to say, has had to evolve or die, and the practices it once employed throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance (at least the beginning of it) would no longer be tolerated - even by other Christians today.Is this about Christians, or the Muslims in Africa?
Last I heard, the Muslim extremist religionist terrorists are doing all the butchering, kidnaping and burning of churches and homes.It might be helpful to read (the entire) article here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligio … n-the-car/Did you notice any of the responses in that article? Allow me to reprint them here, the ones from the so-called loving Christian community of that website:
"Its about time to see people start retailiating aganist Muslims. I wish more people in the world would start fighting back at Muslims."
"I hope everybody in the world goes to war with Muslims. Muslims are at war with everybody. Its time the whole world wipe out the entire Muslim religion."
"Finally, some fellow Christians who are willing to stand up for themselves and their children. I have zero sympathy for the muslims. They cause trouble everywhere they go. "
That makes no sense, it is a direct contradiction.
I will cop that I have been having a bit of trouble finding the best way to explain this particular point.
No problem, if the words suddenly come to you, let me know.
Deuteronomy 6:16
“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test"
From what I've read we can't test God if we doubt him, only if we don't doubt him, which is what I said. When I show all the studies on prayer that should show that payers work, but don't, I'm told that we can't test for God's presence. And yet when someone says they tested and found God nobody disputes the claim and you defend it.At this point I'm not even sure what you're talking about there. If you said, "tested and found God to be true" I would have a much clearer idea. That one paragraph would take a whole book to respond to properly.
I will say one thing though, you forget the rest of the verse, and that's pretty key to the explanation.Let me jump in here. When I was a Christian, I never questioned whether or not god was real, because I as told (and believed) that he was. Therefore when I had "faith", I never questioned. I prayed all the time. Sometimes my prayers (for requests, not for praise) were answered. Sometimes they weren't. But the amount of "successful" prayers (as in, were answered in the manner of which I asked, or even better) was completely random, compared to the prayers that were not answered that I could tell. I can do the same thing now, without the prayer part. I can say "I really hope this happens", and randomly it will either happen or it won't, with about as much the same rate of success vs failure.
When it comes to prayer studies - even those done by christian organizations, the success rate is indistinguishable from the failure rate. It appears, at least on the surface, as completely random and unpredictable.
What I get from a lot of believers is that you have to have faith in god before you can ask for a sign that he's real. What most of them fail to understand is that proposition is completely backwards. It's not the people who already believe in god and have full faith in his presence that need to be reassured that he's there. It's the people that don't. And why would I have faith in something just to get conformation that something is actually there? From my position, it's rational to withhold faith until something is verified or proven, not before. Can you think of anything else in the entire universe that you have to believe in prior to knowing that it's actually true/real?What a loaded question...
I've wrestled with this one a lot. My story seems to be so different from almost anyone else's. I didn't grow up in a Christian household, I was in no crisis of conscience, I was on no spiritual quest. I don't know. I only know that God exists.
Wilderness
lets not forget the Hyena Method: Oh wait! that's the modern atheist solution to unwanted babies.Um, if you are suggesting that atheists feed their unwanted babies to hyenas you may want to give some thought to what it means to spread hate speech. Is hate speech something your religion has taught you?
I'd have to liken it to stating that all Christians burn those they they perceive as witches because some still do.
You mean, it's obvious that two-sided coins are proof of God?
JMcF
I have proved that most online atheists are ignorant: ie. if a person is intolerant of a race or a religion they are technically a bigot and bigots are not famous for being knowledgeable but only for being ignorant.
Game set and match.And how is your tolerance for online atheists?
Rad
the majority BUT NOT ALL online atheists are promoting religious bigotry.
You see its the NOT ALL bit that separates the sheep from the goats.
The stereotyping of all religions and all races is ignorant bigotry. In other words those online atheists who keep stereotyping religions can be easily identified.
McF
its clear that many online atheists are bigoted against ALL religions; bigots are famous for being Ignorant. See its easy if you use logic.
Game Set and Match.
spanking affects? where was this research when i was growing up because i was beaten like a snake almost daily and im perfectly well!
I am sorry you were beaten as a kid. Many are, and many are spanked, and many are emotionally and psychologically manipulated and abused by parents or caregivers that exhibit many a problematic way of handling conflict.
You bring up a fair point. There are actually very many wonderful people on the planet that were spanked, even beaten unfairly, that turned out to be incredibly wonderful adults that don't do the same and are amazing contributors to society, lovers of all kinds of people. Like any maltreatment, some can use it to make them better people and learn and grow from others negative ways. Speaking in general here about people, and it all depends on each individual and how they choose to handle it. Some grow up to do the same things and it is sad.
It takes a very strong person to rise above the negative and hurtful treatment they have endured and choose better and encourage better.oceansnset, you have clearly put this explanation very clear for me. thanks alot!
Mwandika, you are welcome, and thanks!
hey Brittany.i hear you, and totally understand where your coming from. I know Christians usually do have a problem with atheism,but the fact of the matter is, well, we Christians are just looking out for you. I mean,do you honestly think we want you to go hell or be forced into a religion you don't believe in? Look, we just want you to go to heaven and party it up with us. I also get the whole fairy tale thing, too. some Christians question certain things in the Bible, and some people think that's okay. Personally, I don't believe in questioning God or his Word. Anyway, I want you you to know that it doesn't matter about if your an atheist or not, God loves you the same, although I bet he does want you to believe the bible and believe in him.
I have two names that I now see have asked me to not speak them ever again (which is totally understandable considering all things, who can blame them and I would feel the same way ) (I still have not seen either original post, and have to hear about it like it is some kind of scolding, "I told you not to speak to me again!" king of thing.... Of course this is transparent like so many other things.
Is there anyone else that needs me to not respond to them? That way I do not miss it, now is the time to speak up! Lol. Fair is fair of course so please be kind and do into others and all of that, lol.. It's only fair I can respond I spoken to, then I will consider your minds were changed AGAIN, and all deals are off.
In general after this is over, I will enjoy going back to how it normally is anyway. This whole exchange was a unique and out if the ordinary thing, and what has been shown needed to be shown.Sir Dent, thank you! That means a lot to me
Have a great night.
- Rad Manposted 11 years ago
0SirDent, will I just have to take your word for it? I don't even think they are the same people anyway.
They couldn't possibly be.. I have a giant crush on RA... Mark just scares me.
- SirDentposted 11 years ago0
""SirDent, will I just have to take your word for it? I don't even think they are the same people anyway.""
Go to Marks profile page and click his activity. Follow his activity to the forum. I think it is page 14 of the Hitler forum. The post cannot be found. Got to the next page and RA has posted just a few down from the top.
You don't have to believe me and you don't have to check it out for yourself. I knew who RA was the first time I saw the nick. To the person that addressed me several pages back that said she asked me to not address her, lol... Please stop this silliness. If you do a random post (which I have found need to do and more often lately so I understand why I do it at least) yet it is full of addressing very specific points only I made... do NOT play a pretend game of feigning indignance when you are then answered. You asked questions you knew would be answered then act like someone did you wrong. A post that was clearly only directed at me. Then crying foul. (All after waiting on an response in private email from me, where you said you I could find your link on you profile. I have no time or patience for this. No one could keep up, who would want to try with it changing up so much?)
Ultra transparency.
This type of behavior is very childish and manipulative as well. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it. I don't give free passes like you seem to expect others to give to you. I don't mind the lash back I get for it, I am not afraid. Please learn to deal. If it works with some, don't think it will ever work with me. Anyone can debate with those they like, and that fall into line, or that already side. That is for lightweights.
Don't you see that what is much more admirable, is to be able to actually hold your OWN ideas, in debate, without the need to resort to any tactics? I think if one could do this, they would. Since they cannot, they do not. I know why you want me to not address you, and I know why you want to be able to address me while trying to control that I can't respond. Mirror. This is your choice, so again, please deal, or change things up. This is what adults do, OR they truly let people and things go and TRULY stop discussing and playing games. Leave me out of the drama, OR just be fair and debate like adults do. I have already broken my own rule to myself these last few days, and I will never wonder at my choices again in the future.
By now it is not unclear how I operate, and if you don't like me or how I operate, be done. This is what I do with others that I don't find are fair, dishonest, hypocritical, or a host of other things that "I supposedly am" to you and others. Yet you can't let it go. I will debate with fair people while I am still a free human being to do so. To those that can't and want a free pass on unfair or worse kinds of debate, YOU WILL NOT LIKE ME, because I don't let junk slide. If this is what you NEED, you will not like me. So please make a clear decision for everyone's sakes. Then they won't have to wade through the crud to just genuinely discuss. I am not asking of anyone, what i don't want for myself. If you can't fairly rebut or debate me, and it doesn't "go through", its not me being hypocritical, sometimes people genuinely don't make the points they hope to. The way I operate, this is really easy. I expect some to not like me for it. I can handle that. This is my hopes of explaining what I am about what how I clearly see things going on in here.A horrible person would include someone that would rape anyone or anything. Its a much nicer version of what is being said about someone, to say they are a horrible person than the deeds ascribed to them in essence.
A person that would rape a child, IS A HORRIBLE PERSON. AND, they do horrible acts. This is true. (Child or anyone, etc.)
If someone disagrees with me and truly thinks a person that would rape is not a horrible person, they are welcome to that, but yikes if there is a person like that out there.No, there is no such thing as a horrible person. There are people who do horrible things.
Edit: Err... I think Christ believed that.
If you don't think a person that would rape a child is a horrible person for the sake of defending a point or if you genuinely really think that, then you are probably alone in the world in that.
I disagree, and I also think the behavior itself is horrible.Chris was justified in saying that someone that would say what has been said about parents that spank.
If I am wrong then I am wrong, but I truly don't think so. The gist of what Chris said and the reasons I gave are all true and make sense. Needing someone to be wrong to this degree is scary.
Seriously, the level of severe dishonesty is something I cannot stomach. Its like we don't have any common ground, we don't have a common point of view like what is true and honest, to even work from. I will be avoiding you. Don't ever wonder why I do my creative form of communication. I understand the incredibly strong urge to go after people for the very tiniest even micrcoscopic infraction.
It is disturbing, and I am not masochistic, and I am free. Sorry. I have been too kind in giving a chance again. I won't make this mistake again.
When someone needs others to be wrong, and need themselves to be right, to the point that I just witnessed in regards to talking about horrific crimes done to children aren't done by horrible people (as a general manner of speaking), I am just done. This proves to me this isn't about the topics. I feel the need to distance. No one here, that I can think of except you, would deny the "horribleness" of such a person. I can't think of anyone on the planet. I am sure there are a few, and those types of people I need to be very far away from. I am not one of those that not only doesn't take the bait, but they jump right in the boat was it? No way....... You have shared with anyone watching these discussions, how you think and reason. We all make decisions. I am making mine.You do know that accusing me of dishonesty doesn't really make me dishonest.
Everyone on this earth has done something horrible at one point or another. That doesn't make anyone a horrible person.
That's kind of the whole point of following Christ... right? That no matter what you've done, you are still loved. I hate to break it to you, but heaven, by your standards, is going to be filled with horrible people.
Yes, people that hurt children in such a horrific way are not the only kind of people that do horrible things. The particular example is one where I make an exception, and there could be others surely.
Many people can be horrible in many kinds of ways. Many care, change, are sorry, etc.
I said nothing about Jesus not being able to have capacity to forgive those that would repent of such a crime. To be clear.
As for dishonesty, people calling people dishonest isn't what MAKES anyone dishonest. I am speaking in general here to be clear.
There IS incredible dishonesty though that goes on, in many forms here. People choose it. It is very obvious, and can be shown and often is. To those people, there is no point in speaking with them.Why would he choose to save a world full of horrible people? Why crawl up there on the cross? Why would he love ALL of us... if any of us were horrible?
Edit to your edit: Do you ever think you might see dishonesty where it doesn't exist because you lack the ability to acknowledge that others think differently than you? Just because you would never believe in such a way doesn't mean that others don't.
John 3:16-21
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”Yes, for some reason those passages seem familiar. Am I to assume, since you posted with no commentary, that you and I get something different out of them?
I am a Muslim and I have not problem with atheist as long as they don't disrespect our religion. I have respect for all religion. I don't think any christian would have any problem with you if you say that you are an atheist and you love it. But you don't have the right to say the bible looks like a fairy tale. If you feel it looks like fairy tale, then keep it yourself. When you show your reason why theism does not make sense, the theist will also come up with reason to show you why atheism does not make sense. It might hurt same like the way it hurts theist. I hope you get it.
I do not respect your religion. Can you give me a good reason why I should? But I think it is fantastic that you do not wish to spread the word and convert the pagans. I thought that was one of your goals as a Muslim? To convert everyone else - not so?
That my friend is just not so.
In my country I do have that right, but in a muslim state I would not. Did you know the Quran describes the earth as egg shaped and there are some who think the earth is not a sphere but shaped like an egg?
Please don't tell me what to do. I live in a free country.
No it doesn't hurt at all.Sooo, you have the right to tell everyone what you think, but others have to keep their opinions to themselves? Majickal system you have in place. It would seem more than logical amd fair that if you want someone to keep their opinions of your beliefs to themselves that the best way to do that would be to keep your beliefs to yourself.
Too much?Sorry, but I don't respect your religion because your religion does not respect me. Is that fair?
How about this? I'll my mouth shut about the bible (or Koran or whatever) if the believers will quit quoting it as truth. Fair is fair, right? Let the believers not mention their particular holy writings and I won't say they are fairy tales.
BUT suppose for a moment (though you are yet an unbeliever) that we speak truth to you? Wouldn't shutting our mouths about the Way, the Truth and the Life make us parties to your death?
Because we can read the Bible, too. Therefore, we don't need you to tell us what's written there.
To the believer in question that was brought up as asking them to not respond to an another person, that was in their private email! Someone DID ask that person in public, to stop emailing them in private, a TOTALLY DIFFERENT example that almost got passed off as a hypocritical example to people that aren't careful thinkers and observers.
If after this kind of example, I can actually almost see in that case where you would say, please just don't respond to me at all anywhere.
Some just have such a strong need to condemn others that they will go to any lengths and twist the truth like this. I know because I am friends with the person being approached and they didn't ASK to be emailed privately and didn't want to discuss that way. Please, let us stick to the actual facts.
There isn't any reason for me to NEED to publicly scold someone in a made up manner like don't talk to me in a public forum. I just ignore these people when I want to, literally skip their posts and avatars as I see them, problem solved. I would encourage this to be a better way, and lots of petty stuff can be avoided then.
The funniest part about this type of control is the recent ones where I was specifically asked to privately email from their profile page link, after I had read some material. Later I am in big trouble for responding in public forums.I am joyous, I believe in God and Christ. I will not badger or press my beliefs onto you.
Each person is allowed there own beliefs and views on life. 'Why do Christians have such a problem with atheism' can also be made 'Why do atheists have a problem with Christians'.
Belief in God does more than just thinking that theres a heaven, or that we all magically appeared here (adam & eve), belief in a higher power brings us hope, and with hope we can overcome any emotional, psychological, or physical hardships we come across.
As for those witch burnings, crusades, and inquisitions...none of it was really about religion, it was about power and politics usually.Soldier Sam, you wrote this in your Profile: " Many views but none stronger than those on our military and the protection of our way of life."
Now, you post this: "As for those witch burnings, crusades, and inquisitions...none of it was really about religion, it was about power and politics usually." I get your meaning.... hope you are not going to promote anything untoward here in Hubpages.
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
It is altogether possible that if I see the phrase "online atheists" or the word "hyena" or "strawman" one more time, I might tear out all my hair. My husband would be terribly disappointed if I did that, and I really don't want to make him sad.
Just checking to see if anything new has arisen. Carry on, folks.Please don't pull out your hair. If need be I'll send a picture of myself as a deterrent.
Sorry about bringing up the strawman fallacy so often, but it used so often that it needs to be addressed because it's use shows the discussions aren't valid. If we can bring the discussions to the table without the use of fallacies all the time, we might actually get somewhere.
Hubpages is supposed to be a site for writers. It is therefore an obvious requirement that if someone is going to be a writer, they should at the very least make themselves fully aware of using fallacies, so that whatever they write has some validity to it.No you didn't just type that. I just about scalded myself with coffee reading that post. From what I can tell, over months and months of discussions with you, you have no interest in a discussion that "might actually get somewhere". As far as I can tell you're one of the biggest obstacles in productive conversation. I'm constantly asking you for substance and details to back up your statements, which is what's needed to actually have a productive conversation, and you consistently refuse.
The other bit that had me spitting coffee was the comment about this being a site for writers. Neither your current login (ED), nor your other (ATM), has any hubs. Something else I've pointed out. You refuse to give specifics, I can only assume because a specific stance is harder to defend than remaining perpetually vague.
If this is the initial signs of you turning over a new leaf, looking to actually be a productive contributor in these discussions, then I am all for it. I know you're an intelligent guy, so I find it endlessly frustrating that you've proven to be so stingy with your knowledge in the past.No, you are asking me to teach you what would take years to accomplish, evolution, cosmology, physics, biology, subjects that you should have learned entirely on your own.
Strawman fallacy.
Fabrications.
I am not here to teach you what you yourself need to learn on your own. I don't ask others to teach me things, I go out and do my own homework. You should do the same.Can anyone here (other than you) honestly say they don't think I do my own homework? It should be pretty clear that I do. I'm not asking you to teach me these topics in their entirety. I'm simply asking for specifics. When you make a vague statement about how obvious it is to you I don't get something, based entirely on a comment I've made, it should be easy for you to specifically say what it was about my comment that makes it so obvious to you that I don't get it. And it's only natural for me to ask. I am perpetually teaching myself evolution, cosmology, physics, biology, and every other relevant topic. I don't just go around recklessly making statements about things I have not first informed myself on. I know people here are knowledgeable. If I want to maintain even a shred of credibility, it's important that I inform myself.
Motown2Chitown is right, the "strawman" thing is getting way out of hand.Fallacies are used so often on these boards that they have created a fallacy fallacy. It's the mistaken belief that just because you have identified a fallacy within an argument, that the entire argument is wrong. By pointing out an fallacy, you haven't disproved a point, you have just shown that it is based on unsound logic.
The bird is black
Ravens are black
The bird is a raven.
Just because the logic is flawed doesn't mean the bird isn't a raven.That is very true, however if a strawman is used, it does in fact make the argument wrong due to the fact the argument itself is based on a false premise. This fact does not preclude your reasoning that the bird could be a raven, but it still does mean the logic and the argument are flawed.
It makes the specific supporting argument for a point illogical and irrelevant but it doesn't make it wrong. A strawman isn't a negative for the point overall, it's just diversionary. Even if you have discovered and dismissed the supporting fallacy, you have done nothing to address the main point. Without supporting points for your "side" of the debate, you have done nothing except grade their philosophical/debate skills.
Exactly, I agree completely. The argument indeed could be illogical and irrelevant, yet the evidence shows the argument to have been right, which is a probability of coincidence as opposed to a form of the logic in the argument.
And, that is exactly the result of the strawman fallacy, It does nothing to address the main point, that is why it is pointed out.
For example, I used Chris' strawman of when he attacked the credibility of scientists using specious examples that had nothing to do with the subject matter, instead of attacking the results of the science explaining the subject matter.
In this case, the point was the results of the science, it was already supported. Chris began attacking the credibility of scientists in general in order to make his point regarding the result of the science in question.Yes, he was using a strawman to rebut a study. His attempts were to prove that scientific studies were both inaccurate and biased. The examples he provided weren't wrong (they did happen) but they were irrelevant since we were talking about a specific scientific study that was completely unconnected.
The point being that he was attempting to disprove evidence to disprove my evidence (a study that said that beating a child caused emotional damage). Pointing out the fallacy just showed that that specific counterpoint was illogical and irrelevant. It didn't provide any supporting/detracting evidence to the topic itself (Whether beating a child is harmful/moral).
So Chris point was irrelevant, but it neither detracted or added to the "correctness" of his overall argument. Pointing it out neither detracted or added to the correctness of his overall argument.
Both statement provided nothing to the discussion/debate... as such both were equally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Both were diversionary... although neither was wrongNot really, if the strawman isn't pointed out, Chris will continue to believe his point is valid in refuting the evidence. The discussion can not move on from there unless the discussion is agreed upon to change and be about the credibility of scientists and no longer the subject matter of spanking research.
That is important.I agree it's important, but pointing out that it's a strawman really doesn't help... especially if the person is not shown exactly how it is a strawman. You did that very well in a later post, but not the one in direct response. Either way, I still maintain that neither statements were either positive or negative for the overall subject/topic.
I would suspect that this being a writer's forum, the "writers" here would, at the very least, make themselves aware of the use of fallacies in the same way a pilot should make themselves aware of the use of ailerons and rudders.
I can understand that if those having the discussion do so on the grounds of false premises, no problem. Personally, I find false premise discussions to be of no value.Yes, but there is no need for the other person to agree with your point for it to be valid. As such, it is completely acceptable to ignore a fallacy and move on with the conversation with or without their blessing. If there strawman is not valid, it isn't valid whether it's pointed out or not. As a matter of fact, believing your own strawman (or any other fallacy) as a sturdy point really does weaken your own argument inherently... as you tend to base other arguments off of an invalid one.
Regardless, the fallacy in question being illogical didn't disprove or prove that it was harmful or morally wrong to beat children. It neither disproved Chris's stance nor proved it. It was incapable of doing either because it was completely unrelated. He could still be correct in his stance that beating children is neither harmful nor immoral.
The problem is not that people are using strawman fallacies and being shown how, like some of us have done. It's not a tricky thing to spot. The problem is the simple suggestion, assertion or claim that it's a strawman fallacy when it isn't AND can't be shown.
It's very childish, sophomoric behavior.
If you disagree, simply show how someone is making one instead of just accusing. Even with your one explanation I showed how it actually wasn't a strawman fallacy.
So it's really like trying to start petty fights of "Nuh uh" on a playground. Anyone can falsely accuse anyone an dismiss stuff an assert stuff. It takes a lot more to actually debate without resorting to the tactics we see.Uh, I did that already in another post. Perhaps, you missed it. I'll assume you did.
Deleted
Sorry, but you did no such thing.
That would be yet another type of strawman in addition to the one used. It could be argued to be a red herring, as well.
The results of the study was the point. If they are to be refuted, then the results themselves should be attacked, not the credibility of scientists in general.
He never attempted to rebut anything about the study.
I agree also. When someone is asked what they think or what is your opinion, no matter how absurd the answer may seem to you, it is always right because it is an opinion or a thought.
That of course is no problem at all, especially if the person offering the opinion or thought acknowledges that it is absurd, as opposed to the person offering the absurd as a truth of reality. The former will probably be read and acknowledged as well, while the latter will stir disagreement and discussion.
I have been specific, you don't understand the criteria behind the subject matter ie; evolution, cosmology, biology, etc. This will require quite a bit of homework on your part. That is as specific as I can get.
And, that has been accomplished when it shows itself, but we are talking about something completely different.
And yet, that is not what I am seeing. I see the same stuff being trotted out time and again, all resulting in the fact you need to do your homework. Pigeon holing your religious beliefs into reality doesn't work unless you know something about how reality works.
That's what I keep telling you, go and inform yourself.
I agree, that is why I am trying to make a point of the fact the usage of the strawman fallacy is getting way out of hand.
All you have to do is read your own posts and compare them to the fallacy. Are you actually attacking the claims being made or are you creating some other thing to attack?"I see the same stuff being trotted out time and again"
And why is that exactly? Because nothing was ever specifically addressed. Vague arguments don't resolve anything. But if you can give specific reasoning why what I'm saying is wrong, then I can't use it again. But you don't, hence the repetition. That's why these discussions never go anywhere. If someone makes a valid argument, I think I've fairly shown that I will accept and concede. But you have given me no specific reason to think I'm wrong, so I continue to think I'm right. You say you don't have time to teach me, or show me the error of my statements, yet you do have time to perpetually have the same conversation? Do you not see how both cost time? So which approach has the potential for progress and which is a total waste of time?Because, and again, I'll try to be as specific as possible, you keep trying to pigeon hole your religious beliefs into reality. Why you keep doing that has yet to be pinpointed, but most likely, it is the result of religious indoctrination.
Notice how you keep trotting out the same thing over and over without listening to a word I said? Read above where I specified the problem.
No, you keep thinking you're right because you never learn bother to learn about the subject matter that you attempt to pigeon hole your religious beliefs.
The potential for progress is when you do your homework. The total of waste of time is for you to keep trotting out the same thing over and over without doing your homework.That "pigeon-holing" thing you keep bringing up is a vague argument. I get what you're saying, and I understand why you see it that way, but you've given me no reason to think you're right and I'm wrong. You seem certain you're right, but never get into specifics about how you're so certain.
Me, I'm not doing anything any different than those viewed as important thinkers to the early church ...
""Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine
I would think this would be preferable to your kind, as I'm not dismissing science or arguing against evolution. I use modern knowledge to inform and try to find real ground in my beliefs. The natural world did in fact exist in biblical times. So knowledge gained about that natural world through scientific means is relevant.
I can show you a span of 2000+ years that line right up with the timeline given in Genesis. That goes well beyond "pigeon-holing". Reading it in that context I was actually able to make predictions about things I did not know about beforehand. Entire cultures that this view predicted would be there, that are there, that I didn't know about beforehand.
What I've found, if accurate, should be of interest to any human being interested in the truth because it is our origin story. It actually explains how we became how we are today. In the past, people would often insert certainty, thinking they already knew better, which slowed progress. That's what you're doing now. You're putting your hands over your eyes, you're telling yourself you already know there's nothing to this God stuff so nothing I'm saying can possibly be relevant, so it must just be indoctrination forcing me to try to pigeon-hole my religious beliefs into reality.
Hasn't it been argued here that the more rational view is the one open to changing their views if proof was shown? Yet, for months now, you've never once taken a good, solid look at what I'm presenting. So who here has the more honest approach? And who is "pigeon-holing" into reality what they already think is true?You aren't even reading my posts. I already explained that I was specific.
Claiming you are an important thinker does nothing to support your argument."Claiming you are an important thinker does nothing to support your argument."
I'm not claiming I'm an important thinker. I'm saying that what I'm doing is very similar to what early church thinkers did. It's called "natural theology".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
"You aren't even reading my posts. I already explained that I was specific"
What, you mean this as your "specific" explanation ....
"Because, and again, I'll try to be as specific as possible, you keep trying to pigeon hole your religious beliefs into reality. Why you keep doing that has yet to be pinpointed, but most likely, it is the result of religious indoctrination."
Is that not specifically what I addressed?If you were actually interested in establishing what's true and what isn't, then this is a way to go. This is actually a first-hand telling of how the modern human world was first set into motion. It offers explanations for things we know to have happened, that we yet to have established good reason for happening. If we want to better understand what makes us humans what we are, if we want to figure out what's what about all of this religious stuff, then this is where it needs to start. Start here and actual progress is actually possible. Or continue to tell yourself you already know better, based on nothing but assumption.
I see no reason to pursue the folly of natural theology.
For example, Paley introduced the "The Watchmaker" analogy, which has failed miserably as an explanation in light of evolution. It was the entire premise to Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker".Let me illustrate what I'm saying by giving an example of a prediction I was able to make.
I first established a rough timeline. If this timeline were true, then there should be an event a century or two after 4000 BC that resembles the story told about Babel. I looked and then found this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
I had no knowledge of this event beforehand. Yet, here is a climate event that actually happened in that specific region, in the timeframe I was looking at, that closely resembles what's described in the Babel story. According to Genesis the descendants of Noah were scattered all throughout the world, then it goes into the table of nations, explaining that all these nations rose as a result of this.
Well, check this out, from the link above ....
"it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC."
So, you've got both the scattering of people, and a direct link to societies that rose afterwards.
That's the kind of predictions I'm talking about. Is that not how you determine whether you're on the right path or not? If predictions a particular theory make turn out to be true?
To be fair, we've showed you many times that your accurate genesis argument is inaccurate, but for some reason you don't or can't see or understand any inaccuracies. I've shown you time and time again that birds did not arrive before land animals, however you claim that genesis is talking about mammals (which it doesn't specify) and then you claim that the descendants of birds came before the descendants mammals (which I've shown you that they did not) but yet you still claim that genesis is perfectly accurate.
The point is you don't seem to actually listen as you claim you do. That's why evolution has to be explained time and time again to you and yet you claim to understand it, but seem to think God has to be involved which shows us you don't understand it.Genesis specifically says "livestock" does it not? Does that not refer to mammals? Also, I never claimed that birds came before "land animals". I said birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, which ARE land animals. So of course land animals came first. Which is exactly what Genesis says. And yes, dinosaurs did come before mammals.
I'd listen to and accept your points if they were right, but they're not. As for evolution, I understand perfectly well how evolution works. It's random mutations, with those traits that prove beneficial being propagated more fully. What's not to understand? Just because I talk in the context of there being a God doesn't render what I say about evolution inaccurate. Nothing about what I say conflicts with the fossil record.
But what I'm talking about here doesn't have anything to do with the creation account. This is in regards to Genesis 2-11. Roughly 5500-3500BC in Southern Mesopotamia.That's what I'm talking about.
So stating that there was fruit trees before any type of insect or animal and before the sun ever touched the earth or even existed?
So stating that birds arrived at the same time as water creatures?
So it's accurate to assume all land living creatures, livestock and creatures that move along the ground are mammals?
And it's also accurate to state that the ancestors of birds arrived before the ancestors of mammals and creatures that move along the ground.
It's also accurate to state that when the writers of genesis gave a key to what a day was (And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day) they didn't mean a day as they described?Yes, plantlife came before animal life. That is true.
The sun is part of the 'heavens', which it says was created in the beginning. What else would they be talking about when they speak of the 'heavens'? The empty space between the sun and stars? No. When they say 'heavens' they mean the sun, the moon, the stars. So nothing existed before them.
You're apparently going by the version taught in sunday school, where the first part is talking about all the life in the sea, and the second part is talking about all the animals on the land. The first part specifically stating birds should make it obvious it's not just talking about animals that stayed in the sea.
The first part says "moving creature that hath life". Animals on land are also moving creatures that have life. Not just mammals.
The writers of Genesis were explaining ancient events to people. Saying the first "day", the second "day" is a literary device, not something that literally means a "day". They meant it exactly as the word is used in Hebrew, to represent an undetermined amount of time (age). Evening/morning are often used in Hebrew to describe the beginning and ending of something. Not just a 24 hour day.See?
You will continue to argue that birds came before mammals when not only did they not but mammals were not what they were talking about, they were talking about all land living creatures.
You will continue to change the language to suite your own needs "The sun is part of the 'heavens', which it says was created in the beginning." Where does it say the sun is part of the heavens and where is heaven defined?
This is what you do. A day does not mean a day even when it says it does. Birds came before animals and fruit trees came before insects and animals. You will claim it's accurate and that the writers when explaining these events to ancient people and when they said a day is (God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.) they didn't mean Day, they meant millions of years.
There really is no point.You do realize the English you're reading isn't how it was originally written, right? Have you scoured over the text, studying the Hebrew along the way? See, these texts are ancient relics. They're evidence. Yet, here you are, basing your opinion on why it's okay to ignore it as nonsense, based entirely on a clunky English translation. Would you argue that a particular skeleton doesn't belong in a particular spot in the fossil record? No, you would ensure you understood skeletal evolution in all its complexity before making such a call, or defer to someone who would know. You'd respect the artifact for what it is, and give it the proper level of consideration. Yet with Genesis, you feel its okay to just dismiss everything I'm saying based solely on how you read the English translation of it. How is that right? Aren't we all here trying to arrive at some sort of truth? This ancient artifact comes to us from the same place and time that humans became civilized. This is an artifact from a key point in our history, yet you're tossing it out because the way you read it in English.
You're looking for reasons to dismiss it. The fact is, I wouldn't have anything to say about it if it wasn't so on point. There'd be no amount of twisting of the text to get it to fit. It fits because it's accurate. You're having to drill down to the specific details like fruit trees and whatnot in an attempt to refute it for a reason. Nobody around when this text was written, could have known to write verse two so that it accurate describes an actual state the earth was in, before land and before life. Nobody could have known the oceans came first. To specifically say that the land came into existence after. They knew that. That's right. And just after that, life. They got that right too. And they even break up the two primary classes of animals with specifically mentioning birds (sauropsids- reptiles/birds) first, then livestock (synapsids- mammals) second.
You don't have to accept all the God stuff by acknowledging how on point this is. Just recognize it for what it is. An incredibly accurate telling of the formation of this planet by people 3000+ years ago. How they knew all of that, who knows? But focusing in on the way in which its told, when any number of old stories about the ancient past are told the exact same way even now (back in so-n-so's day), when all the details in between are so incredibly on point, is to miss the bigger point. This ancient artifact got things right we didn't figure out until this century. It wasn't until this century that we'd even be able to recognize how right it is. Why be so insistent, based on very little research and assessment, that we toss this all out as rubbish? Would it not be an invaluable piece to the puzzle if this is right to know it's right? Do we want the truth or are we picking and choosing what we'll accept?Is it then your contention that the Christian holy scripture, the bible, was NOT inspired by their god? That the writers of the KJV bible (not the original works, the bible as we all read it) did NOT have god helping them provide correct translations?
I just go by what information is there. No, based on the fact that the entire point of the story is that people have free will, I do not think God wrote the bible "through" people or "aided" in the translation. I view the bible as a man-made thing, I do not hold it up to a "written by the hand of God" standard.
In the case of the creation account, the only being capable of knowing the whole story at that time would be beyond human. According to the story, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch all walked and talked with God. I think the creation account is a telling of how each element came about, and in what order, in the context of people who were privy to the information, even if they didn't totally understand it. It's told as if there's a couple of guys standing outside, and one guy points to the sea, the sky, the trees, and basically explains how at first none of it was there. Then came this, then that. The span of time, really irrelevant. It's the details in between. And these really were six significant ages of the earth's past that they're broken down into. They didn't just get six eras in the right order, they named the more significant developments along the way.If it is not inspired by a god, or written by one, what makes you think it is true and infallible? Every other book ever written has errors, mistakes and usually outright lies; if the bible is written without God's interference and control it will have the same. Particularly considering the ignorance of the peasants at the time it was written.
This is purely an evolutionary assumption.
There is no reason to think that "prehistoric" peoples were inferior to us.
Anyone reading the ancient text, such as the Bible will have to admit, that the depth of human understanding and behaviour (as an overall) was equivalent to humans today, minus the technology, and (vast) knowledge we posess to day.Didn't bother looking the word up to see what it means then? Figured you would not.
"minus the (vast) knowledge we possess today."
I didn't bother looking up the word for two reasons.
1> I know what it means, &
2> The use of the word (by you) was totally irrelevant to my comment on which you used it.
Dear oh dear.
An Englishman that doesn't know the rules of his own language!Of course it is relevant, Your statement is about as accurate a description of "ignorance" as is possible.
Dear me.I guess you're right.
You obviously believe we came from ignorant lowlifes, and evolved into the magnificent specimens we are today.
Monkey to man!
So, the ancient writers were morons, on the way to becoming highly developed atheists, once they threw of the last remaining restraints of religion.
Yep, I think I'm getting a handle on it.Please go look the word "ignorance" up.
Inferior. Inferior as in strength, eyesight, speed or intelligence? Very highly doubtful.
Inferior as in a much smaller knowledge base (ignorant)? Absolutely.
That's what I mean when I say I don't hold the bible up to some "written by the hand of God" standard. I don't expect perfection. I see it as a man-made thing by people who were privy to information they couldn't have had otherwise. These are events documented by humans of actual interactions between them and this God.
Yes, there are mistakes in there. Just look at the duplicated wife-sister narrative in Genesis 12, 20, and 24, I think. Something like that. The same basic story, the same series of events, but happening to different people. What more likely happened is there was one story where the players got interchanged over the years. Then when the OT was compiled together, they just included all three versions of the story.
Considering, as you put it, "the ignorance of the peasants", it's rather significant just how right they got a lot of things.But they didn't get it right. This has been explained to you on many occasions. You have changed the writing to suit your pre-existing need to believe.
Why would I do that? You refusing to acknowledge the accuracy I get. Me changing something to seem true when it isn't is pointless. That would mean I'm trying to fool myself, or worse, that I know it isn't true but am telling others it is. Why would I do that? What would I get out of doing that?
If you can't see how accurate it is then I really don't know what to do for you. It's pretty obvious. The seas were first, true. Then came the atmosphere, also true. Then land, true. Then life, true. I can't change the writing where these specific things are described. The words are how they are. That's what they say, and that's what happened.Not much point explaining it once again is there?
Oh, no need to apologize. I have no problem with you having nothing more to say. I'm totally fine with that.
Of course you are. Tell us the one about the majick boat again. I like that one best.
I think you must be confusing buoyancy with magic. That's not magic. It's all relevant to boat size and water displacement. A boat built by those measurements is buoyant. No magic involved. A bunch of lucky guesses, I suppose, by these desert dwellers, to know to give measurements for a sea-worthy vessel.
No magic in the boat. With tens of thousands of animals, all their food and refuse for several months. Including food for several more years as everything living thing on earth was dead and rotted.
And that all happened without magic?It was a local flood. Only animals from that region. Likely way less than tens of thousands.
It's magic because one guy built the boat the size of a modern day cruise ship from trees from a treeless place using saws he made himself.
From the Torah, found and translated online with Jewish rabbinical commentary:
What part of this do you think doesn't line up with the modem English translation? Additionally, I didn't know you knew Hebrew. I wish I still remembered most of it.
1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. א. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ:
2. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water. ב. וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחשֶׁךְ עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם:
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ג. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי אוֹר:
4. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness. ד. וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאוֹר כִּי טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחשֶׁךְ:
5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. ה. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים | לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד:
6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, and let it be a separation between water and water." ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם:
7. And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it was so. ז. וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָרָקִיעַ וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ וַיְהִי כֵן:
8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day. ח. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ שָׁמָיִם וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם שֵׁנִי:
9. And God said, "Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. ט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל מָקוֹם אֶחָד וְתֵרָאֶה הַיַּבָּשָׁה וַיְהִי כֵן:
10. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas, and God saw that it was good. י. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים | לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:
11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so. יא. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ בוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי כֵן:
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. יב. וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע לְמִינֵהוּ וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ בוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:
13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day. יג. וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי:
14. And God said, "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night, and they shall be for signs and for appointed seasons and for days and years. יד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים:
15. And they shall be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth." And it was so. טו. וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהָאִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי כֵן:
16. And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars. טז. וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וְאֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים:
17. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth. יז. וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ:
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and between the darkness, and God saw that it was good. יח. וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלֲהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחשֶׁךְ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:
19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day. יט. וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם רְבִיעִי:
20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens." כ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל הָאָרֶץ עַל פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם:
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. כא. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים וְאֵת כָּל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה | הָרֹמֶשֶׂת אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם לְמִינֵהֶם וְאֵת כָּל עוֹף כָּנָף לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:
22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth." כב. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וְהָעוֹף יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ:
23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day. כג. וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי:
24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so. כד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וַיְהִי כֵן:
25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good. כה. וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֵת כָּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב:
26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." כו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. כז. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים | אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם:
28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. " כח. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. כט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב | זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so. ל. וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל | רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day. לא. וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי:I don't "know" Hebrew. But I did scour over every word throughout the first eleven chapters intensely, in Hebrew, in an attempt to prove or disprove what I was seeing. Before I branched out and started talking to others about it, I looked for cracks because I basically thought, surely, if the answer were this simple, someone would have seen it. I must have missed something. Going through the text as it originally appeared was an important part of that. Making sure that the text, in Hebrew, lined up. Didn't contradict.
What I'm trying to get across to Rad is how flippantly he's willing to toss out what, when you look past all the religion stuff, is an ancient relic from the dawn of civilized culture. Too many seem willing to toss the whole thing out more because of what's been made of it in the ages since. I'm trying to get him to recognize that he's knitpicking the semantics of an English translation without giving any great level of attention to the piece as an ancient relic in an ancient language.
He's insisting that I'm just finding ways to wiggle around and "make it work" and I'm trying to explain to him that basically the objections he's insisting are factual and accurate, that he thinks I'm just avoiding accepting, are things I have heavily looked into and he clearly has not. I'm trying to get across how he's not giving the level of attention to what this is that it deserves. He's too willing to pitch it as irrelevant and totally off-base, rather than recognizing it as the relevant piece of history that it is.Strange, nothing seemed to change with that translation either. Here I thought you had something about the translation.
What I'm trying to get you to realize is that the version you're using, and hanging on every word, arguing semantics, is a translation. What you should be paying attention to are the broad strokes that I can't change, that this translation as well maintains. The sea being first, then the atmosphere, then the land, then life. That is undeniable. That's why you have to drill down into the details to try to refute it. If it wasn't so on point I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Yet, clearly, I do. There's a reason for that. Because it is that on point.
But the sea was not first. Land was; liquid water without land just isn't going to happen in this universe.
The land that you and I stand on came long after the seas. You're probably talking about the hardened outer crust of the earth. Not the same as land. The continents formed long after the oceans and long after the atmosphere.
So now you are saying I shouldn't look at any detail to check for accuracy? The funny thing is I'm not even looking a details. It's the big stuff I'm looking at.
I'm saying recognize the obvious. This was written just like this 3000 years ago. Nearly 3000 years before we knew the oceans formed first, then the atmosphere, then the land, then the animals. You looking at the fossil record and seeing that the earliest bird found to date was found later than some mammals that are known to exist is completely missing the point. To actually be a bird meant it had to have been evolving since long before those mammals showed up. Don't be so eager to toss this out. Is that how you'd treat any other relevant evidence? Why be so adamant and refuse what is clearly there?
What you are missing is that it says birds came before land animals including creepy crawly ones.
Gen1:20 - And God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
How do you figure? Right there, before birds, it says "moving creature that hath life". That would, presumably, include "creepy crawly" things.Because later it says
"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
You see according to the bible it was ocean creature, birds and then the next day (era) land animals which include creatures that move along the ground.
Of course you may not like this translation, but it says the same thing in the translation Julie supplied.Birds breathe air and live on the land. Clearly, the first part isn't only talking about animals in the sea because it specifically says birds. Moving creatures that have life. Let the waters "bring forth". That's what happened. Later, when it says "let the land produce" these creatures came from the land. Life had to be on land already. It was. It was covered the previous "day".
See we didn't all originate from the sea? Some life "livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals" originated on land? Is that how you read it then?
Right, but the previous part starts with "let the waters bring forth", including birds, then it's the land creatures. So, the previous part covers how life had already come from the sea. And it's specific mention of birds means it's not just talking about sea life. If these were maybe the other way around, that would be one thing. But the fact is the first covers the second. That's what really happened. Mammals came from reptiles who were already on the land. They fundamentally changed for still unknown reasons. And those changes happened while they were on the land.
The fact is this text lines up incredibly well with the progression that we only figured out recently. It stands up next to it and mirrors it. The sea, then the atmosphere, then land, then life. And not just that but plantlife first, then sauropsids (birds), then synapsids (mammals/livestock), then humans. All correct. With the first of those being specifically described as coming from the sea.Firstly, you've made an assumption that these sea made creeping things were on land. It doesn't say they were on land and the next chapter then mentions creatures on land. We've got,
Water,
Land,
Land vegetation, including fruit trees,
Lights in the sky, (the entire universe so that we can navigate at night)
Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky. “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
Let the land produce living creatures, livestock and creatures that move along the ground.
Remember all creatures came from water.Well, if stood up next to what really happened, it lines up. There were living creatures on the land that literally became mammals while on the land. I'm not taking any grand leaps here. You see the same thing I do. If you simply stand it up against the progression as it really happened, it mirrors it. I'm not pulling any shinanigans. I'm simply using the standard model for the geological and biological formation of the earth, and I'm pointing out how on point it is.
Life coming from the land is covered because life had already come from the sea in the verses before that. And we know they're not just talking about life in the sea because it says birds. So, before the life from land bit, it already said that life "came forth" from the sea, and we know that it's not just talking about fish. That is the order in which it really happened.Though I have no revelation in the area of creation except that God is the Creator of all things, that at his command it was so, and that his Word is inspired by the Spirit and true in one form or another (literal in some places, symbolic in others, and perhaps unknown to us in some places), I do find it remarkable that the human who was inspired by the Spirit would say "let the land produce" (which lines up with general findings of today) when this would have been completely outside any thought during his day.
I know the Word is truth in that it was inspired by the Spirit. But in the same way those who saw visions of planes couldn't describe them as planes (but as winged creatures, etc.), so also we remember that God chose to use limited men inspired by his Spirit to give us all of the Word, including words about creation.
I am hoping to encourage Christians to unite in the essential truth that God is the Creator and that we were created according to the Word (however literal or symbolic), whatever they personally believe (or even have revelation of) regarding the details of creation, literal or symbolic nature of the creation account, age of the earth, etc., etc. The second CREATION DAY is October 18 (Saturday this year) and it is for all Christians who want to declare that God is the Creator, regardless of whether they believe much of evolution theory, believe only aspects of evolution theory, or take a literal 6-day approach to the Word. I believe the Spirit is intentionally NOT giving me full revelation because the need is unification of God's people and we ALL agree he is the CREATOR of all things. In this truth we may stand united in our declaration within an unbelieving day!
SO you agree it is back to front. Birds evolved after "land animals" not before.
Of course they did. They breathe air. That had to happen before they could evolve to fly. They had to be able to breathe first. We know birds evolved directly from sauropsid reptiles, which were land animals. "let the waters bring forth". Onto land. Verse 2 clearly says the point of view is from the surface. So, from the surface, God saying "let the waters bring forth" means exactly that.
Right. So your majick book has it wrong because it is claiming "fowl" before land animals.
I truly echo the same observations over time. I look for (and I ought to stop this for the seeming futility) points made with the things that can make points at all in debates.
It is as if some TRULY believe (not think) that protesting points, denying points, asserting things, and simply dismissing valid and sometimes excellent points IS a way to get ahead.
Tenacity, even if done like that for an indefinite amount of time will NEVER make actual truths of arguments disappear.
Using the wrong tools and methods for getting something done means you don't ever get it done. Some behavior seems like bullying, and acting like a proud peacock only impresses some. I'm not impressed.
Saddest of all is the attempting to give all a certain impression of strength and knowledge and moral superiority that simply isn't there. I would have sympathy more often than I do for this, but that kind of behavior makes these forums a joke a lot of the time. You can tell in how other members of hubpages have been commenting about the religion forums lately.
I still think it's good to make factual points and arguments but some have successfully almost made a true non discussion happen of the points others want to be discussing.
No worries. I was poking fun. You may bring up whatever you like whenever.
I really did pop in to see if anything new was happening, if anyone had entered or exited the conversation.
I do, however, thank you for answering me sincerely. And I agree that it's important for us to recognize fallacious reasoning if we're attempting to prove something through reasoning and logic.
Here's one more.
Demmit with the inflammatory language again...
I suggest: Individuals who hold no particular belief in a god or gods who have access to a global computer network.
Individuals with testes from a little-known hominid species composed of dried grass and weeds.
Wild carnivorous felines with dog-like behaviors; diet consisting largely of imaginary Christian infants provided by completely imaginary homosexual atheists.Oh shucks, Melissa... how did you suss me out? Thought I was incognito here!
Brilliant!
You know me and my inflammatory language! Anything I can do to light a fire. You're welcome.
I'm fairly good at trimming a hedge, Mo. Would you like me to come over and tidy up your hair for you?
So your husband does not subscribe to the theory that Bald is Beautiful?
To be entirely fair to my wonderful husband, I often joke that I'm going to shave my head. His usual response is, "Wanna borrow my clippers? You gonna go cue ball or just brush?"
For some reason, he thinks how I look is far less important than I do.
I'm a very blessed woman.I'm the same way with my wife. She has long, beautiful hair, but goes through like an hour+ routine every morning because of it. Meanwhile, I just let my hair dry and run my fingers through it a time or two and I'm done. So if a bald head means getting that hour+ back every morning, I totally get it.
Yes you are.
As most people here know, I have a pretty full beard. I used to keep my hair short, and I told my wife once that I was thinking of shaving my beard. She said that was fine, until she understood that I was going to shave the beard, not the scalp. Then she threatened to divorce me. Not seriously, but everyone agrees that I look better with the beard than without.My husband wears a pretty thick goatee, occasionally shaves completely or gets pretty furry. I much prefer his facial hair, but I would love him (and his face) no matter what.
I personally like everything BUT just a mustache. And there are occasionally men I've met who can even make that look good!I told my big guy I would divorce him if he shaved his beard... so he just shaved the rest of his head. I love the beard... it gives me something to yank on.
I predicted this. Someone is Having to pay for rightly standing up.
So tired of the manipulation we all see. Who needs fair weather friends? I don't.
Enough with the conditioning.Last time I looked, we were having a conversation about the use of fallacies in arguments/debates. Did I accidentally give someone sodium pentothal then put them on a rack again?
I hate these little lapses I keep having.
I appreciate your query, Brittany. We, as Christians don't hate atheists, per se, but we do find fundamental flaws in the denial of God's existence. We aren't saying that we hate hate atheists or think atheists are "bad people". In fact, we love atheists, and I can personally say that I have dearly loved many atheists in my life, some romantically!
I could answer your question philosophically, but I feel that others have already done so better, with words that have stood up against argument and have similarly stood the test of time. Most will refer you to C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity", which is a worthwhile book for atheists, deists and Christian theists alike. William Lane Craig, who can easily be viewed on YouTube or on his personal website, gives very clear reasons for the faults of atheism, and I find his explanations helpful and quite complete. It takes some thinking, but you seem like a deep thinker.
If you ever wanna chat more about it, visit my hub and message me, even if its just to say hi!SO you reject what the bible says about atheists then? What else have you decided is nonsense in the bible?
Actually, Lewis does not stand the test of time, his book is easily refuted as nonsense:
"A Fool is not persuaded by the childish anecdotes in Lewis' attempt to establish a "Law of Human Nature" somehow based on "The Law of Nature' which leads to a "power" that is soon spoken of as a "Life-Force," but which finally is to be called "God." This thing Lewis calls God is then defined in double-talk"
Craig is one of the most deceitful apologists, his strawman arguments are legendary, most atheists won't even bother debating him because his arguments are so easily refuted, hardly any thinking required.You wrote, "in Lewis' attempt to establish a 'Law of Human Nature' somehow based on 'The Law of Nature' which leads to a 'power' that is soon spoken of as a 'Life-Force,' but which finally is to be called 'God'."
I've seen atheists on here speaking of a "force" in evolution. Why is a "force" more logical or believable than an "intelligent and purposeful force" (God)? It's absolutely NOT more reasonable, logical, etc. In fact, it's absurd - something out of a movie - "The Force" (Don't they speak of forces in some of those silly movies?) Perhaps modern people have spent so much time having their brains washed by the movie makers from earliest childhood on, that nonsense now seems more sensible than sense!
I guess it's because Christians want everyone who is an atheist to be like them.
The problem Christians have with Atheism have seen the scrapping off of some books in Bible.....This raises the question....did God inspire some writers and left the others? The few conflicting verses in the Bible are also to blame. Lastly, from past studies, it is evident that many Christians do not read the bible, on the other hand they listen to preachers who are in most cases not well informed.
I think it is a sad thing that Christians are not really reading the bible for themselves, and only listening to misinformed teachers. (When that is the case anyway). It makes you wonder what drives some people to do that if they do that.
The problem Christians have with Atheism have seen the scrapping off of some books in Bible.....This raises the question....did God inspire some writers and left the others? The few conflicting verses in the Bible are also to blame. Lastly, from past studies, it is evident that many Christians do not read the bible, on the other hand they listen to preachers who are in most cases not well informed.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Well, if one wants the perfect topic to increase hub-traffic , take a forum tack against Christianity , Hey ! It's already been beaten to death in these forums already . I consider myself a non-practicing Christian .....If you or anyone wants to believe your atheist ,fine ! I for ,could care less. Stop beating a dead horse, for atheists sakes !
Awww - Christianity is not dead yet. They are still burning witches in Africa and preventing gay marriage in the US. Glad you have stopped the practice.
First, from your previous response to Oceans
The she was in reference to me. So, judging by that statement you made, there appears to be a lack of honesty in this exchange.
Second, please name the conflicts your, or my, country started in the name of religion during either our, or our parents, lifetime. You can't use sound bites from individually elected officials. You have to show where the vote was taken and our elected officials agreed on wording...something to the effect of 'we start this war in the name of ''insert name of religion here'' '.
Because seriously Mark, you do need to make accurate claims if you want anyone to believe them.If you could answer the question it would certainly give some credibility to your assertions here.
and just because you've inserted a word doesn't mean you can answer the question by using that word. You called me a liar for my statement, not your changing of it.Please stop accusing me of doing things I did not do.
That has nothing to do with what you copied, inserted words and then used your additions to call me a liar. Obviously, you have an agenda which doesn't include honest dialogue on your part.
Carry on and enjoy, but don't think no one notices the bait and switch. It continuously chips away at the credibility of your arguments.Please stop lying about me. I did no such thing - that is what I quoted.
No, it is not the rearranged and heavily edited quote you posted which i responded to. I have not lied and would appreciate it if you practiced honesty when responding to me. If you are capable of it. If you find that impossible....well, it wouldn't surprise me.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with others being atheists; however, when atheists get in my face, so to speak, and start telling me how stupid I am for believing in God, that is when I start having a problem because I don't shove my beliefs in their faces. I also notice that a lot of atheists are angry all the time and some of them are angry at the deity they claim to not believe in, which makes no sense. Yes. I know a lot of atheists. I have friends who are members of the Jesus Seminar and we have a lot of frank and open discussions about God, Jesus, the universe and such, so I run into a lot of different beliefs and attitutes.
Hi Heather, I have observed a lot of the same behaviors you describe, and feel it think similar there. In general though, I have no problem with atheists having the views they hold. We all have views, and I think extremism on either side is pointless and often problematic.
That same EXACT thing applies to Atheists. Someone asks them what they believe in, and when they say "nothing" it suddenly turns into a battle to save their soul. If people constantly hound them for not believing in anything, it is understandable they will blow up on anyone who asks "why" they do not believe in anything. If people actually practiced what they preach, then an atheist's answer to "what do you believe in" is the ONLY answer they need, no need to force them to elaborate further if they do not care to.
Also, an atheist lacks a belief in any god. Misotheism is the hatred/anger towards gods. Learned that the other day, felt I should share.Interesting you share about atheism and misotheism there. When it comes to labeling ourselves, that is one thing. Our actions sometimes show something else to be going on. If a person is an atheist that just lacks a belief in god, I would expect their actions to line up with that idea, to be reflective of that idea. If a person acts like they almost have actual anger, rage or hatred towards god, that person may look like they are a misotheist, through their actions. This is true of any of us, that say one thing, and do another. (If we do that.)
Was there a particular point you were trying to make, other than essentially repeating what I said?
If you act like one but label yourself as the other, then its just a case of not labeling yourself properly. I don't really see anything past that in regards to what I originally said.Link, I think you got what I was trying to say there. Some people (not you as I don't know you yet) seem to fit another description over what they say they are. I thought your post, in that sense of sharing the definitions of misotheism vs atheism was helpful in getting people to think about their views.
When specifically do atheists get in your face? Perhaps when you are knocking on their door attempting to convert them? I have to say no atheist has ever knocked on my door and tried to convert me.
It happens more often than you'd think. It's usually more of an attitude like you're one of the ones holding up progress by rejecting science and rational thought because you refuse to reject what's obviously a fairy tale.
That's not really getting in someone's face... it's exasperation. Many times it really is the case as many religious cannot separate their beliefs from every other facet of their lives...or anyone else's really. So it's not really a desire to convert anyone as it is that the religious are often gumming the works of progress... its irritating.
Gumming up progress. There it is. That's what we run into. Based on nothing more than stating our beliefs we're automatically categorized as back-ward thinking and uneducated. People standing in the way of some better tomorrow because of our stubborn hold on old antiquated beliefs.
No, based on the action of several religious organizations that have pushed to have backwards and uneducated thinking shoved into scientific debates, public school and public law.
Seriously, how many arguments have been made over evolution by the religious? The fact is there is no more place for a conversation about God in evolutionary theory than in germ theory. Yet, there it is.
It's an invasion by the Religious into the Scientific community. Since they have to spend precious time and resources fighting religious interference in their work... yes, it is gumming up the works and standing in the way of a better tomorrow.
Anyone say intelligent design in public schools? Anyone say stemcell research? Anyone say "traditional marriage"?I'm just as against those "religious organizations" as you are. I probably spend more time trying to pull other believers out of the closet than I do talking to atheists. I do all I can to incorporate science into the discussion and into the mindset. I encourage believers to learn and know science and try to show them that belief in God and science are not mutually exclusive.
And as much as I hate to say it, you will be judged by the loudest and dumbest of Christians. I am too. I'm beginning to believe THAT was what Christ was talking about with the persecution. You either rail against the ones causing the stereotypes and try to change them (They are going to immediately say you aren't a Christian) or you accept that-if you are truly different- you are going to be treated in a way that your "brethren" have set up for you as a price for following Christ.
Sucks, right?
Either way, the Atheists aren't to blame.That's true of nearly every group. The most boisterous are the ones who often set the expectations for the group. How does that excuse the atheist? Are they not mindful enough to realize that themselves? That they're categorizing and stereotyping based on something they heard some crazy person exclaim?
Well, to be honest, we both chose our faith... So that choice is kinda on our shoulders...
And you do spend a lot of time trying to force religion into science with your whole genesis thing.To be clear, I'm not trying to force relgion into anything. I'm not a religious person, I don't attend a church, I don't associate myself with any particular denomination. I'm simply pointing out something that everyone else seems to have already made up their mind about and moved on. Prematurely. The story that Genesis tells gives a very specific timeline. And that timeline mirrors an actual period in the history of that specified region.
If what I'm trying to point out is true, and I have ample reason to believe it's closer to the truth than anything else, then it offers better understanding to who we humans are. It offers insights into what made the modern human world what it is. It helps determine exactly what people are trying to use science to figure out. It's a rather big part of our collective story.
I wouldn't spend the kind of time I do talking about it if I didn't think it was significantly important.Goddunit is significantly important? Dear me. Stick with the majcik boat dude.
And it is all Philosophy... and in no way follows any type of scientific process. The second that you say something doesn't mean EXACTLY what it says... you are out of the realm of science. If you want to argue philosophy.. have at it. But it IS NOT SCIENCE.
Science is the best method we've found thus far at determining what is true. It's a tool we use to find truth. If God is indeed truth, but we're not allowed to even bring it into the discussion, then we're hampering ourselves.
The Genesis stuff I attempt to point out is a perfect example of that. Here we have a text that tells a story that includes a God. That story mirrors what actually happened in that region and timeframe, and even explains how some things happened that we to this day do not yet understand, but because God isn't allowed into the discussion, it's not even considered. It offers one cohesive explanation, but is tossed out because of the God part. Because it's "not science".
Well we have gaps in our understanding where humans suddenly got so smart and started building civilizations. Genesis offers an explanation. An explanation that the people who actually populated that time/place echo in how they describe it. They say they were taught. By gods. But that's ridiculous right? Well, not really. Because they really did make significant strides in their technologies and inventions. We know that part is true. What they were able to do in a very short amount of time completely transformed how humans live on this planet. Yet the best we have to date are some rather hollow assumptions about how this must be attributed to farming, even though farming spread all throughout the world with none of the rest of this accompanying it.
That right there is an example showing how what you're saying has the exact same affect as what you're trying to avoid. It leads to false conclusions because somebody has deemed this or that not worthy of consideration. If it turns out that that very thing is part of the truth, then we've already hampered our ability to ever really know the whole truth.Then prove God exists. That's the very base premise that you are operating on... and it's unproven. You prove he exists and the rest we'll talk about.
The thing is that to understand science you need to put your faith aside. There are many many scientist who can put their faith aside and see how all of this could have happened without God. This doesn't appear to be what you do. You appear (to me at least) to study it to see where you can insert your religious views.
Has anyone ever approached you physically and made those statements and got in your face with it? Do you see the walking around town holding their non-bible yelling Atheist's scripture? Because this online stuff is not in your face. No one needs to stay here. I'd say on average about once a month someone knocks on my door and wants to convert me. That's in your face, but of course you can still shut the door.
I get that. I'm not a fan of that either. That's one of the problems I've always had with organized religion. Every church I've ever been to there was a coached expectation to 'spread the word', which is basically to drum up attendance. Church people are expected to 'win souls'. Especially amongst the youth in the congregation. I was taught the same, but then would get looks of disapproval because all my friends were covered in piercings and tattoos.
But we'll often be treated like we're the ones going door to door. We all get lumped up together into one group so that I'm somehow having to address something Kirk Cameron said about bananas. I think my biggest issue, being a self-proclaimed science nerd, is this attitude like science is the soul domain of the atheist. You should see the looks of confusion I get when someone who knows I'm a Christian hears me make a comment about how we're evolved, or something similar. It's like they just can't wrap their heads around it.Science is the realm of the secular, or it should be. That's kinda the aggravation.
^That right there is where I have an issue. Science is the realm of humans. Anyone and everyone who lives in this natural world. It doesn't belong to a particular ideology.
That was my point. Science belongs to science (secular, non-religious), bringing religion into it muddies it. It makes it unpure. It defiles it.... it does that word I'm not allowed to say to it.
How do you know that? Nobody knows for certain whether a God exists or not. If He does then He's a presumably a pretty big piece of the overall puzzle. So, if that's still a place where nobody knows for certain, how can it be then determined for certain that God has no place in it? What if God actually is part of the story? We're limiting our ability to actually reach that conclusion because we're injecting certainty where it doesn't belong. We're limiting the questions we can ask.
Nope. Observation and testing, peer review... all that stuff is pure science. It has no agenda. It has no religion... and it shouldn't.
If God chooses to make himself scientifically provable... then he gets to play. If not, he doesn't- and shouldn't- exist in the world of science.That's exactly what I'm talking about. I get what you're saying. People can get into the mindset of injecting God in those cracks where they're not able to find understanding. But if there really is a God, then He's going to be a major player in the overall story. If you and others deem the whole topic not worthy of inclusion, then you're rendering yourself unable to get the whole picture if a God is indeed a part of it.
Let's not forget ...
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
What you're insisting on limits what the answer can possibly be well before we're in any position to make that call.That's nice dear. But when imagination stops being imagination it becomes science. Not before. You don't say "Well, gravity MIGHT exist, so let's run this experiment using that MIGHT as a fact"
Science builds upon knowns. So again, when God is KNOWN... we can include him in science. Until then, nope... sorry.Yes, exactly, science builds upon knowns, and generally doesn't exclude anything not yet known as certain. When you do then you may very well be removing valid possibilities from the table prematurely.
Then prove God exists. Then we'll see if the book written about his timeline lines up with science.
How about proving the events of Genesis actually happened? That can be done. It all took place right here in this observable natural world. There are floods and climate events that mirror what it explains, there are other cultures that say they interacted with god-like beings like what it describes. If the story told in Genesis can be shown to be accurate, then that goes a long way towards the rest.
No, it absolutely doesn't.... unless you can prove that God exists, you can't prove Genesis. Period. To prove Genesis, you have to prove that God exists and that it happened just the way the book says. LITERALLY. 7 days is literal, btw.
No it doesn't. If Genesis is true, it doesn't automatically make the god claim true. You have to prove that the god exists first, before you can start taking about what that God did or didn't do. You're just begging the question and going about it backwards.
First you need to prove a God or Gods exist and then you'd have to prove that the God described in Genesis is the God that exists.
Scientists use philosophy all the time. There are philosophers of science, and you can see it in articles and books, etc. Just a reminder of that very real reality.
What is strange is when they use philosophy, and keep calling it science, and only allow 1 philosophy in and discount all the others. This is what is not consistent, and none of it is technically science the second it leaves the realm of science.
It takes a keen eye or ear to notice how seamlessly the transition is made from science to philosophy then back to science again. All without the admission of doing so. Usually, any other philosophies other than the accepted ones are ridiculed. They are in essence esteeming one philosophy over all others as being plausible or not even admitting it is philosophy at all. Its something most of the general public doesn't notice, they trust these scientists with all they have, and never think they are being taught philosophy also. It gets in through the back door of the writings and conversations and debates.
This is partly why I think they feel the need to put down other's philosophies and ideas to the degree they do.Science: This thing has been proven. We can then hypothesize on what it's effect is.
Philosophy: This thing might exist and if it did, it might do this.
Science is building new ideas based on the previously proven.
Philosophy is building ideas on what ifs.
God has not been previously proven. Once he is then he can play on the Science ball-field. Until then, he is PURELY philosophy.
And I don't think you understand what a philosopher of science is. You like wiki. Look it up.Well, one example would be the discussion of the mind in these forums that many of us have been a part of. People are working out of ideas, not science so much, to defend their views.
Origins of our universe, and life...... since people don't know for sure, they are keying in on ideas, philosophies (not science) to take and make the views they do. So anywhere you see these ideas held to to explain the science we all know and usually agree upon, those would be examples.
A philosophy can work, be neither here nor there, or be very limiting. When I say work, I mean actually work, not forced. I see a lot of forced ideas to try and work because they simply seem to need to be by the person holding that view. Its not because it actually works, very often. Many people don't see how their views limit them in regards to explaining our human experience. In other words, if say materialism is only true, then that truth would have the world and the people in it looking and "being or behaving" very particular ways.
People side too often with their held views, even when shown something that actually works and makes more sense, or is more reasonable to fit the evidences we see and agree upon. Scientists do this also, and I think its part of the reason why so many laymen adopt the same thing.I think you are referring to an hypothesis which a is proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. That's limited evidence, not no evidence and then one has to find evidence for and against the hypothesis. This is not at all like making the claim that God exists because there is no evidence that he exists and no way to study it. Well there is but that has fail miserably.
Hypothesis - Abiogenesis and evolutionary processes are responsible for life, with no God required.
Evidence for the hypothesis - small-scale changes or micro-evolution observed, similarities in DNA, etc.
Hypothesis - God is responsible for life
Evidence for the hypothesis - magnificently complex and purposeful creations infinitely beyond any possibility of chance interacting with natural selection no matter how many billions upon billions of years is permitted for such; similarities in DNA by ONE Creator; countless witnesses who have met God in Spirit form and now worship him, etc.
Because you can control and study micro-evolution, you think this makes the hypothesis regarding godless abiogenesis and evolution more believable, even though the microevolution was perfectly consistent with either hypothesis, and really proved nothing about the godless abiogenesis and evolution hypothesis?
And further because the spiritual truths are beyond our ability to control and study, you discount them and find them unbelievable. So is this largely a matter of a human need to control, which then interferes with simple humble belief in that which is beyond human ability to control?Contained within that "etc." are mountains of evidence and facts to support evolution and abiogenesis. That's why evolution is a fact of nature.
Sorry, but that explanation and the "etc." have no evidence or facts to support it. None.Your "mountains of evidence and facts" all boil down to repeating the SAME FACT over and over and thinking it provides additional evidence. No matter how many times you find microevolution occurring, it only proves the same fact that was already proven - things change or "evolve". This does NOT contradict the existence of God or the truths within the Word. We know the Creator made things to change or evolve.
Cat333, none of your beliefs or your superstitons provide any evidence to convince me that your judgmental god exists anywhere but within your mind. There might be some kind of influencing factor upon the evolutionary process, one of infinity that we cannot describe or explain; but certainly not one that judges us, such incredibly insignificant flecks of dust on the universal scale. If you cannot bring your mind to think beyond such assumptions it is not surprising that you cannot accept the basic tenets for evolution.
(Edit: or do you accept them?)If I may jump in a second, I just saw this. If there is a god and he IS judgmental, then we could never judge him for that. He would be at least greater than we are, and would then be expecting something of him we don't expect of ourselves.
We simply disagree with the judgements of others. We are all judgmental. I don't know that I have ever known of a human that wasn't judgmental in some way, ever. Our societies flow in part because there are people making judgements about things that can hurt others. Not speaking of poor judgement, just being judgmental period. (A side point)Rather than assuming God is perfect and knows best why not look at his words. We all judge and decide if someone is right or wrong. Have some self respect and look at the words honestly. If the words are not what you suspect a perfect God would do or say than use reason to determine who wrote what.
Sorry, there is no evidence for a Creator or God, that is just your personal belief.
No, we are limiting our understanding of the universe if we make assumptions about what we think happened. That's what happened to countless scientists throughout the ages. That's why we don't insert Gods into science. That's why we had the middle ages.
Many of the problems of the Middle Ages related to the corruption that came about as a result of 90% of the population being unable to read God's Word for themselves and having to rely on corrupt leaders, who then would not even allow the reading of the Word by the people. Sadly, leaders are more often than not corrupt, whether political, religious, scientific, media leaders, etc.
Why trust what is said by a religious, scientific or other leader? NO person can be fully trusted. The Spirit and the Word will guide us into all truth.So if someone finds evidence that show that the bible is inaccurate and false and the evidence is verified, you will accept the evidence? Like for instance evolution and an old universe?
Before addressing the inaccuracy of your statement here, let me ask you this: If someone found what they thought was evidence for something you KNEW could NOT in truth be any such thing, would YOU believe it? For example, suppose they told you they had evidence that your parent or wife or son (whoever you know best) had committed a premeditated murder. You would automatically know something is amiss, even if everyone else in the world accepts their "evidence". For those of us who KNOW THE LORD, who is the Word, we know there is no such thing as evidence that contradicts him.
Now to address the inaccuracies - the Word does not contradict actual findings of science (e.g., microevolution) or even necessarily macroevolution (though that is more controversial and not proven as microevolution is). Further, certain phrases in the creation account are strikingly similar to findings of our day but not the thinking of the day when written (e.g., "the land produced" various things). Even further, you are nitpicking about specific words again (and "coincidentally", at least to me because I did not do so intentionally, I've just in the previous sentence used the word "day" in a different manner than a literal 24-hour day). And even further, with God all things are possible so that within a 24-hour day all things could be set in motion so rapidly they had the appearance of billions of years. (So it really doesn't matter if it's a literal day or a symbolic day). And even further, we cannot demand that the Word of God read as if written by the hand of the all-knowing God himself, as he for his own purposes used men (who he inspired by the Spirit) to give the accounts. Though they were inspired of the Spirit and gave the essential truth God wanted us to have, they were nonetheless humans limited by their time and knowledge. So those who saw visions of planes through the Spirit didn't describe them as "planes" but as "winged creatures", having the face of a man, etc. Likewise, those giving us accounts or words about creation and the Creator, give us their Spirit-inspired knowledge from their own limited human state. God does not owe us all the details, which belong to him alone.Soooo, that's a no. No amount of evidence would do. It's kinda what I thought.
Cat, your example makes no sense. If there is evidence, whether it be blood samples, a journal detailing the murder, any type of incriminating dna traces or heck even VIDEO...there is no doubt they committed the murder. To think otherwise is to be delusional. What YOU want to believe does not make it true to anyone else, especially if there is evidence to the contrary. The only reason to justify any other line of thinking is to be able to prove that person was with you at the time of the murder, but your comment did not seem to address that possibility.
That example was a very poor way of trying to get your point across. Unless someone goes to extreme lengths to frame you (like government conspiracy type lengths), if there is enough evidence you can prove something to be true or false.
So far, there is a substantial lack of evidence to prove god exists. The bible is not even close to being evidence, and believing that god exists in your individual body/mind in the form of a "spirit" does not count either. Unless you can yank that spirit out of your body and show it to everyone, it will never be considered as proof and should not be used in any argument that is for the existence of god.We speak of spiritual truths, known and understood by the Spirit, not the natural mind. Really we're not interested in PROVING God exists. If it worked by PROOF, then God himself would give you that. It works through the revealing of truth by the Spirit, through that which is understood through the Spirit, and through the calling and response of the called (which includes ALL who will respond, as ALL may come to the Lord).
Any supposed "evidence" that allegedly or from our limited viewpoint contradicts God and/or the Spirit-inspired Word is either no real evidence at all, misunderstood findings, is based on our misunderstanding of the Word, is a deception, or the like.
Obviously in the example to suppose, the accused person did NOT in fact commit a premeditated murder, so the so-called demonstrated "evidence" would not include a tape of them other than perhaps one showing they were nearby. It was about you knowing someone so well you knew to call the falsehood on the allegations no matter the supposed "evidences". Since you consider the example a poor one, does that mean there is NO ONE in your life you know beyond any doubt would never commit a premeditated murder? If you can think of any person who you KNOW wouldn't commit such a murder, then imagine you were told by the cops that they had all this evidence against your loved one. You would NOT believe the cops, and you would KNOW there existed some alternative explanation - either the cops were simply lying to you, or someone had framed your loved one, or some situations had occurred that led to certain "findings" (e.g., your loved one came upon the murdered person and tried to help them, so blood got on their shoes, etc.), or they had acted in self-defense instead of the alleged premeditation, etc.. You might not have all the details, but you would say with confidence about this particular loved one - I KNOW them and they wouldn't commit a premeditated murder. It really wouldn't matter what sorts of "evidences" the police came up with, you would know the truth - something was not being presented accurately or honestly, or something unknown existed that confused the case.
As for any so-called "evidence" against God, NONE of it stands. The universe was created by God and nothing that has been found contradicts that. Nor can it in truth - You can come up with NO TRUE "evidence" against God. Only that which some may use to mislead, confuse, deceive, etc. In the end God himself will PROOVE to you that which he has not given any person the authority to prove. At this time, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!How funny to see you speak of evidence. Clearly the FSM created the Universe and you have provided no evidence that this is not true. She will be very, very upset at you and force you to grovel when she comes back to prove herself.
Nope. I don't knock on doors to convert anyone. I never said this online stuff is in my face. I do tell people that I am a Christian and at that point atheists will, with me having said anything more than that will launch into their reasons for not believing in God, the reasons they think that I must be ignorant or/and not intelligent and that I am of course going to start attempting to force them into the kingdom of what they don't believe in. Knocking on doors is not my job. My job is to live the very best life as a Christian that I can. If you want to talk to me about why you don't believe, that's okay. If you want to ask me why I do believe, I will tell you. That's the way I interact with my friends who are Fellows of the Jesus Seminar as well as my other atheist friends with whom I spend time. So yes, in short, I have had atheists approach me physically and get in my face. When that happens I leave their presence as soon as possible, of course.
But you started by bring up your faith. Why did you do that? You were in their face by bring up your faith.
Hi Heather, I am the same way in that if they want to talk to me, I am more than happy to. If they want to ask questions, and genuinely discuss even their extreme skepticism, I have no problem with that. I encourage that. I think some of the strongest people with the most character, can calmly discuss their beliefs without having to ever get in your face or belittle you, or put whole groups of people down. I don't think it is ever necessary, on either side.
So you admit that without being invited to you tell people of your irrational beliefs? Do you wear a badge as well? I see a lot of self professed Christians wearing a badge to be sure of telling people what they believe. Odd that then anyone who tells you it is nonsense is "in your face" - how about a deal - you try keeping your irrational beliefs to yourself ? Do you think that would stop these "in your face" atheists from attacking you?
See how that might work?
1. Keep your beliefs to yourself.
2. No one will tell you your beliefs are silly.
Deal?
No Christian ever agrees to this deal - wonder why?
I am truly surprised at how anyone can argue FOR the existence of god, at least the one described by the bible. According to the book itself, he has killed for the most petty reasons imaginable...yet he is all loving.
People continue to say we cannot comprehend gods logic when the bible makes it very clear that he not only works off of human logic but very sexist logic as well. Yet now that no one has seen him for x amount of years suddenly his "reasons" are unknowable to us (yet people still claim they understand god...huh?).
To me, when people try to justify his actions it only sounds to me that they are deluding themselves into thinking he did it for some good reason unknown to us simply because they wish to get into heaven/paradise after death.Saftey in numbers, the more the people who believe, the more sure the belief.
This is an interesting thread to say the least. She has her view on things and that is it. Rather then everyone saying this and that, judging, think for a moment if you will.
What would Jesus do? He would say pray for her, right?Hi Lyricwriter, you are probably right, though I am not sure exactly who you are speaking of there. If people do want to come and discuss views, then I think that is ok too. I am always hoping for fair discussion but its not always as easy as you would think. Good point though.
It has long been a habit online, even bragged about by some groups, of dog piling on a Christian in order to "shut them up." That was the case clear back to AOL, too. There would be numerous bullying, hacking types dog piled even on a little old lady Christian named Bonnie. My guess is a true Christian, and there are lots of pretenders intentionally disparaging the name of Christianity, may share in accordance with the Great Commission, and out of concern for someone's soul. This should be in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says people are without excuse, that even creation and the wonders of your body evidence the handiwork of God.
Over the years I have generally found that someone professing to be an atheist usually has a rebellious spirit in that they do not want to confess to a Creator lest they have to make changes in their life, or has had a bad experience with the church, for example, in their background. In accordance with the Bible, the most read book in history, that does mean eternal damnation, and God does use Christians to witness to people.
Related Discussions
- 929
What happened to an atheist to make him/her convert to Christianity?
by Claire Evans 5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
- 28
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?
by M. T. Dremer 10 years ago
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
- 66
Define Atheism? Do you have a concrete defination for it?
by augustine72 13 years ago
I have talked to many atheists and some say that atheists are people who do not believe in the concept of God. But in the past people said that atheists were people who believed that there was "no God". What actually is atheism?
- 21
If they truly believe that there is no God, why does it matter to them that I do
by Angela Michelle Schultz 8 years ago
If they truly believe that there is no God, why does it matter to them that I do believe?I have written online Christian articles. Those who comment on my Christian writings are usually, 75% Christians, 25% atheists. I appreciate all the comments, but what I find interesting is how hard some of the...
- 451
The Christian Religion Causes Conflicts and Division
by Mark Knowles 14 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence. Not only are these forums littered with arguments between atheists and believers,...
- 119
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.
by charlie 8 years ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?) to eat the real meat- understand the deeper things of God, in spite of the fact...