Being stopped in the street to talk about "Jesus Christ".

The amount of people that came to this thread to post about how they don't like it's existence is baffling, just don't post in it for (your) gods sake.

Biggins

Sacramento wrote: »

...I've been stopped in the street and had people knocking on the door about Jesus Christ. Does this happen to any of you guys often? What's your reaction to them?

Occasionally I get stopped in the street. I just keep walking.
If they try to get in the way, they get dumped onto their ass - otherwise I just keep going.

As for my home, I have a notice in my front door window: "No religious nuts, no sales people and no junk mail"
Works most of the time and when it don't usually a "fcuk off" sends them a message.

Seaneh

Biggins wrote: »

Occasionally I get stopped in the street. I just keep walking.
If they try to get in the way, they get dumped onto their ass - otherwise I just keep going.

You're so badass...















and full of beans

Sonnenblumen

Jesus loves you.

Hyperbullet

Seaneh wrote: »

Men in suits and girls dressed like blossom = Jehovah's Witnesses.
.

Who goes around dressed up as one of The Powerpuff Girls? :pac:

Have been stopped several times in Galway by lads in suits with badges asking to speak about Jesus and I politely tell them I'm not interested. Both they and I just keep walking. However the guy that came to my door asking if I was an avid reader of the bible and tried to sell me some magazine was not so nice upon hearing I wasn't interested, told me I was going to hell and flames will come out my eyes apparently.

Sonnenblumen

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's funny how you never see atheists stopping people on the street to talk about the non-existence of God.

I'm all for allowing people to believe whatever the hell they want, but there is a rather odd element to Catholicism that tries to convince non-believers into believing. It's not as sinister as it used to be with the Crusades, but it's still very odd.

You believe in God? Sound. You want to convince me to do the same? Fuck off. I have a mind of my own, thank you very much.

Sad when the Church run educational system fails, and rebelling individual thought becomes confused and self centred. Ignorance might be bliss, but rudeness is regretable. But who knows, perhaps when the time comes for the end, some may change attitude again as they confront a new future alone in a Church run hospital.

Monty Burnz

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm all for allowing people to believe whatever the hell they want, but there is a rather odd element to Catholicism that tries to convince non-believers into believing. It's not as sinister as it used to be with the Crusades, but it's still very odd.

It's not the Catholics who do this, it's the smaller, more culty groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses who do.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism doesn't claim to have a profound impact on anyone, or claim to secure peoples eternal destiny. Christianity changes this and pretty much everything. So of course there is going to be a difference in terms of evangelism. By the by, one can only evangelise if they are giving good news (evangelion), atheism isn't great news. Wahey, you're going to rot in the ground when you die! :pac:

It doesnt claim to but I guarantee anyone who's realised they dont believe in god it does have a profound impact on them. its a relief to realise you dont have to live your life to appease some supernatural overlord.

krudler

conorhal wrote: »

That's because atheists, frankly, are just plain lazy. Usually they just stick to cluttering up the internet with tedious, incessant and obnoxious posting.
So. get up off your arse and grab a megaphone or STFU. The bible bashers are no less annoying than any number of tin wavers and frequently less obnoxious, so what I do and politely say no thank you and move on.
.

yet groups like Atheist Ireland are "just like a religion!" when they organise a meet or protest something. Can't win.

RussellTuring

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Sad when the Church run educational system fails, and rebelling individual thought becomes confused and self centred. Ignorance might be bliss, but rudeness is regretable. But who knows, perhaps when the time comes for the end, some may change attitude again as they confront a new future alone in a Church run hospital.

That's nice but I don't think people who are gullible enough to believe in gods in normal circumstances are any less likely to do so in tough times. We can hope though.

Biggins

Seaneh wrote: »

You're so badass...

and full of beans

I, like many have no time for bullschite and simply not willing to have it shoved into our faces or want it on our doorstep.
These religious nuts can fcuk off. Like it or lump it.
I'm too old for fcuking around with these assholes.

strobe

Two JW lads knocked to my door a few months ago. I was pretty baked so when they said "Could we talk to you about God" I told them to come in. They kind of looked at each other then back to me and sort of nervously handed me a couple of magazines and couldn't get out of the drive way fast enough. To be honest I think a lot of them would rather be at home watching TV but do the whole evangelising thing cause it is expected of them by their community. Like with a lot of Catholics going to mass years ago. That was certainly the impression I got from my mate in school that was a JW.

It can be annoying alright but I feel sorry for them more than anything.

conorhal

krudler wrote: »

yet groups like Atheist Ireland are "just like a religion!" when they organise a meet or protest something. Can't win.

That statement just smacks of sour grapes. They are just like a religion in their behavior. They noisily proselytize their opinions and are generally firm that their belief that their convictions and ideology are superior to anybody else’s. And make no mistake, their group is an ideological one. Fact, is the certainly that God does not exist, but the ideology of atheism Ireland is that they should determine the cultural values of the state. The problem with that of course is that they have no collective values, just aggressive individualism, and lets face it, egotism is no way to run a society, in fact an egotistical society can only head for collapse.
If atheism Ireland can't win, it seems that’s because it's no different to any other group that promotes an ideology, and it’s hard to win hearts and minds of they have nothing to offer the collective other than the values of egotism.
What I don’t get is this, our morality and cultural values are derived in the main from Judeo Christian ideology, denying that is just stupid.
For example, I don't get why they would have a problem swearing on a bible in court, why can't they just view it as traditional oath and as a symbol of a commitment to truth. I don't see why they feel so threatened by the symbolism and behave like some kind of secular Taliban, bent on destroying all symbols that they find so offensive, if religion has no impact on your daily life then why rail so hard against it, that's just pathetic.

strobe

conorhal wrote: »

if religion has no impact on your daily life then why rail so hard against it, that's just pathetic.

That's the thing. In their view religion does have an impact on their daily life. Over the last few decades it has come to have less and less impact on peoples daily life, in part, because people railed so hard against it.

I'm not even going to address your laughable assertion that our morality is based on Judeo-Christian teachings. Is murder legal in India? How about theft? How about rape? Nonsense.

RussellTuring

conorhal wrote: »

That statement just smacks of sour grapes. They are just like a religion in their behavior. They noisily proselytize their opinions and are generally firm that their conviction that their ideology is superior to anybody else’s. And make no mistake, their group is an ideological one. Fact, is the certainly that God does not exist, but the ideology of atheism Ireland is that they should determine the cultural values of the state. The problem with that of course is that they have no collective values, just aggressive individualism, and lets face it, egotism is no way to run a society, in fact an egotistical society can only head for collapse.

Funny how you say they have this particular ideology and then say they have no collective values. Which one is it? And they do not try to determine cultural values of the state, whatever you mean by that. They in fact say that government policies should not be influenced by special interest groups like the Catholic Church and others.

If atheism Ireland can't win, it seems that’s because it's no different to any other group that promotes an ideology, and it’s hard to win hearts and minds of they have nothing to offer the collective, either morally or otherwise, other than the values of egotism.

What exactly is this ideology then?

What I don’t get is this, our morality and cultural values are derived in the main from Judeo Christian ideology, denying that is just stupid. I don't get why they would have a problem swearing on a bible in court as a symbol of a commitment to truth. I don't see why they feel so threatened by the symbolism they don't believe in and just view it as tradition instead, rather then behaving like some kind of secular Taliban, bent on destroying all symbols that they find so offensive.

How original. "We're a Christian culture. We always have been and always will be". What a tired argument. Nobody in their right mind would deny the obvious influence that Christianity has had on this part of the world. Indeed, that's one of the basic problems that many non religious people have with it, besides the lack of evidence and that. For you to say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation and a poor strawman argument.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the reason in swearing on a book with as much violence, bigotry, ignorance and contradictions as the Bible. Why on Earth would swearing on this make me any more likely to tell the truth, especially since I don't believe it is the word of God?

conorhal

strobe wrote: »

That's the thing. In their view religion does have an impact on their daily life. Over the last few decades it has come to have less and less impact on peoples daily life, in part, because people railed so hard against it.

I'm not even going to address your laughable assertion that our morality is based on Judeo-Christian teachings. Is murder legal in India? How about theft? How about rape? Nonsense.

Oh well, now that you've explained it, I can clearly see that 2000 years of christianity has had no moral or cultural impact on western civilization at all! Thanks! :rolleyes:

strobe

conorhal wrote: »

Oh well, now that you've explained it, I can clearly see that 2000 years of christianity has had no moral or cultural impact on western civilization at all! Thanks! :rolleyes:

I didn't say that it had no cultural impact on the western world. In fact I don't think I have ever heard anyone, anywhere, at any time, ever claim that even once.

Nice strawman buddy.

(by the way. Overusing that rolleyes smiley makes you look silly. It really does, ask around.)

cbreeze

If the pub has no seats left I am with friends a surefire way of getting a spot is to ask the 'have you heard about Jesus?' Works a treat!

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I'm not even going to address your laughable assertion that our morality is based on Judeo-Christian teachings. Is murder legal in India? How about theft? How about rape? Nonsense.

This is an excellent point. This is probably because we are all human, and we were born with a conscience, and more than likely that we were all created by one Creator. This would explain much of the commonality between people.

Even the Bible recognises this if one takes a look through the 2nd chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans:

Romans 2:14-16 wrote:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Seems quite obvious to me even from a secular perspective that our basic ethical systems are very similar.

conorhal

RussellTuring wrote: »

Funny how you say they have this particular ideology and then say they have no collective values. Which one is it? And they do not try to determine cultural values of the state, whatever you mean by that. They in fact say that government policies should not be influenced by special interest groups like the Catholic Church and others.


What exactly is this ideology then?

Secularism and egotism. There is a difference between ideology and morality and collective vlaues. I find it ironic that a special intrest group argues against special intrest groups.

RussellTuring wrote: »

How original. "We're a Christian culture. We always have been and always will be". What a tired argument. Nobody in their right mind would deny the obvious influence that Christianity has had on this part of the world.
Indeed, that's one of the basic problems that many non religious people have with it, besides the lack of evidence and that. For you to say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation and a poor strawman argument.

I'm confused. Which is it, 'obvious influence' or 'lack of evidence of any influence?

RussellTuring wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the reason in swearing on a book with as much violence, bigotry, ignorance and contradictions as the Bible. Why on Earth would swearing on this make me any more likely to tell the truth, especially since I don't believe it is the word of God?

It's the act of swearing that matters, so what if it's traditionally on a bible. As for the usual whiney athiest diatribe that the bible is all about 'violence, bigotry, ignorance', so is Shakespere.
I'm not a christian, but I reckon it has a decent second act. People that rail against christianity remind me of those idiot trots what decry the evils of capitalism and sort of ignoring the fact that it has raised a hell of a lot more people's standard of living then communism ever did. It's a tunnel vision view of an important and influential book that has shaped our culture, for ill, and yes, for good also.
Atheism Ireland and the Dawkins brigade remind me of a secular Savanerola and his bonfire of the vanities*. It's that 'everything must go' attitude regardless of any esoteric value that turns me off, is smacks of bitter nhillism. I regard our Judeo Christian culture as our cultural DNA and even though I'm not a practicing Christian or anything, I still believe that it is part of our history, culture and values and thus worth keeping.


Bonfire of the Vanities (Italian: Falò delle vanità) refers to the burning of objects that are deemed to be occasions of sin. The focus of this destruction was nominally on objects that might tempt one to sin, including vanity items such as mirrors, cosmetics, fine dresses, paintings, playing cards, and even musical instruments. Other targets included books and manuscripts of secular songs, as well as artworks, including paintings and sculpture.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

It doesnt claim to but I guarantee anyone who's realised they dont believe in god it does have a profound impact on them. its a relief to realise you dont have to live your life to appease some supernatural overlord.

I don't have to live to appease some supernatural overlord. I could do what you are doing and merely live according to my desire. It is out of thankfulness to God for liberating me from the slavery of sin that I praise Him and thank Him. I have the freedom to live distinctively rather than live according to human expectations of how I should live. I trust in God, and in His guidance as to how I can best live in His world.

krudler

conorhal wrote: »

That statement just smacks of sour grapes. They are just like a religion in their behavior. They noisily proselytize their opinions and are generally firm that their belief that their convictions and ideology are superior to anybody else’s. And make no mistake, their group is an ideological one. Fact, is the certainly that God does not exist, but the ideology of atheism Ireland is that they should determine the cultural values of the state. The problem with that of course is that they have no collective values, just aggressive individualism, and lets face it, egotism is no way to run a society, in fact an egotistical society can only head for collapse.
If atheism Ireland can't win, it seems that’s because it's no different to any other group that promotes an ideology, and it’s hard to win hearts and minds of they have nothing to offer the collective other than the values of egotism.
What I don’t get is this, our morality and cultural values are derived in the main from Judeo Christian ideology, denying that is just stupid.
For example, I don't get why they would have a problem swearing on a bible in court, why can't they just view it as traditional oath and as a symbol of a commitment to truth. I don't see why they feel so threatened by the symbolism and behave like some kind of secular Taliban, bent on destroying all symbols that they find so offensive, if religion has no impact on your daily life then why rail so hard against it, that's just pathetic.

That post of just so full of wrong it should win an award.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't have to live to appease some supernatural overlord. I could do what you are doing and merely live according to my desire. It is out of thankfulness to God for liberating me from the slavery of sin that I praise Him and thank Him. I have the freedom to live distinctively rather than live according to human expectations of how I should live. I trust in God, and in His guidance as to how I can best live in His world.

so you thank god for liberating you of a sin that he created in you to begin with.

theres that "god can do no wrong" thing again, the ultimate get out of jail card.

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an excellent point. This is probably because we are all human, and we were born with a conscience, and more than likely that we were all created by one Creator. This would explain much of the commonality between people.

Even the Bible recognises this if one takes a look through the 2nd chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans:



Seems quite obvious to me even from a secular perspective that our basic ethical systems are very similar.

That's a bit of a leap.

conorhal

krudler wrote: »

That post of just so full of wrong it should win an award.

Well that told me. :rolleyes:

philologos

krudler wrote: »

so you thank god for liberating you of a sin that he created in you to begin with.

I don't believe God created me with any sin. Sin is simply falling short of God's standard, and it's by what I've done in my life that I have done this rather than some form of cosmically given birth defect.

krudler wrote: »

theres that "god can do no wrong" thing again, the ultimate get out of jail card.

Fortunately I haven't even had to use it :pac:

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap.

Explain?

It seems evidently more reasonable than assuming that there is no rhyme, reason or purpose to this existence.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe God created me with any sin. Sin is simply falling short of God's standard, and it's by what I've done in my life that I have done this rather than some form of cosmically given birth defect.

Ah yes, sorry I forgot two people in a garden eating an apple is what doomed the world to a life of sin, my mistake.

It seems evidently more reasonable than assuming that there is no rhyme, reason or purpose to this existence.

Why? whats so terrifying about there being no purpose to life other than to live it as you see fit and not worry about what happens later?

RussellTuring

conorhal wrote: »

Secularism and egotism. There is a difference between ideology and morality and collective vlaues. I find it ironic that a special intrest group argues against special intrest groups.

Secularism is not a uniquely atheist domain and they don't exactly make a secret of the fact that this is their aim. Whether or not they are egotists is a matter of opinion and obviously they are in yours. You also said that egotism was their only "collective value", so now you're contradicting yourself.

They argue about the influence of religious special interest groups in areas that are none of their business. It is certainly the business of non religious people when they are legally discriminated against because of their lack of faith.

I'm confused. Which is it, 'obvious influence' or 'lack of evidence of any influence?

Lack of evidence for a god, not lack of evidence for the influence of religion. Do you admit your misrepresentation?

It's the act of swearing that matters, so what if it's traditionally on a bible. As for the usual whiney athiest diatribe that the bible is all about 'violence, bigotry, ignorance', so is Shakespere.

And what would be the point of swearing an oath on a copy of Hamlet, especially if you didn't like it? If it's the act of swearing that matters, which I would agree with, why the holy book?

I'm not a christian, but I reckon it has a decent second act. People that rail against christianity remind me of those idiot trots what decry the evils of capitalism and sort of ignoring the fact that it has raised a hell of a lot more people's standard of living then communism ever did. It's a tunnel vision view of an important and influential book that has shaped our culture, for ill, and yes, for good also.

And what is communism in your analogy? Are you again conflating the existence of Christianity with the existence of morality? Nobody is suggesting eradicating religion, as communism would require of capitalism, so it's an unfair comparison.

Atheism Ireland and the Dawkins brigade remind me of a secular Savanerola and his bonfire of the vanities*. It's that 'everything must go' attitude regardless of any esoteric value that turns me off, is smacks of bitter nhillism. I regard our Judeo Christian culture as our cultural DNA and even though I'm not a practicing Christian or anything, I still believe that it is part of our history, culture and values and thus worth keeping.

What do you mean it's worth keeping? Once again and for the last time, nobody is suggesting we eradicate religion. Also, nobody is denying the impact it has had on this part of the world.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Ah yes, sorry I forgot two people in a garden eating an apple is what doomed the world to a life of sin, my mistake.

The fall was the result of Adam and Eve using their free will to disobey God. Sin (or falling short of God's standard) entered into the world the second that they used their free will in this way because nobody had fallen short of God's standard before that point.

krudler wrote: »

Why? whats so terrifying about there being no purpose to life other than to live it as you see fit and not worry about what happens later?

It's just nonsensical.

I'm not worried about what happens to me later. I've been saved by putting my trust in Jesus, I have nothing to worry about. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). What I am concerned about is helping others (mainly off-boards) to build a relationship with Him before its too late.

beanyb

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems evidently more reasonable than assuming that there is no rhyme, reason or purpose to this existence.

Eh... no. To you it may seem that way, because you believe in God. But if we're to stick with the real definition of 'reason' as something that takes actual fact and logic into account, then no, it's infinitely less reasonable to think there is a God. Belief in God is based on faith, not on reason.

I'm not saying this in a 'you're an idiot for believing in God kind of way.' I just mean to point out that fact and reason aren't actually on your side. And that's kind of the whole point about faith...

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

Explain?

Monotheism only gained popularity relatively recently in human existence. It's also not exactly a point with much consensus. The other things you mentioned in your post are virtually universally accepted. The part I highlighted is not.

It seems evidently more reasonable than assuming that there is no rhyme, reason or purpose to this existence.

Why?

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

The fall was the result of Adam and Eve using their free will to disobey God. Sin (or falling short of God's standard) entered into the world the second that they used their free will in this way because nobody had fallen short of God's standard before that point.

so why condemn the world based on the actions of two people? if people didnt have free will then nobody would have been "led to god" as sin wouldnt have existed to begin, theres that get out of jail free card again.

Why's it nonsensical to believe life is there to lived for what it is? and not to appease a being that will look after you in the afterlife, just not in this one. god created man as a test run for the afterlife? why not just make the world perfect to begin with with no free will and have it the way he wanted it? h wait, he can do no wrong regardless of how much wrong he does.

Fart

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

richymcdermott

Although i believe in a god i must admit it does get annoying having people call to your door and ask do you go to church and talk bout god to ya.. I got stopped a couple of times myself and i try to be polite when they say can we have a moment of your time i try to be polite and say no thank you but no matter how polite you be they keep following ya .. Wish they stop

philologos

RussellTuring wrote: »

Monotheism only gained popularity relatively recently in human existence. It's also not exactly a point with much consensus. The other things you mentioned in your post are virtually universally accepted. The part I highlighted is not.

Thanks for this. It may not be universally accepted, but in finding a reason why this would be in common, one has to ask why this is the case. It seems that a common Creation would explain much of this. In that we are humans, and not only are we humans but our consciences are geared to reflect a higher standard, that is God's standard.

I would thoroughly recommend that you take a read of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity if you get a chance. If I knew you personally I would lend you mine, but unfortunately I don't have this privilege :pac:

It was this realisation that encouraged me in my faith when I became a Christian about 4 years ago.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why?

Why is it more reasonable? Well my intuition can tell me that it is more sensible that things don't come out of nothing. That includes the universe. My intuition also tells me that things of a finite age almost certainly had a cause. Most physicists as far as I know believe that the universe had its beginning roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

My intuition can also tell me that in moral decision making people act as if there is universal morality even if they may claim that such a moral system doesn't exist. If you have wronged me, I am making a claim. One that there is a standard of right and wrong that is in common between us. The other that the other should know on this basis that they have done wrong. Otherwise how could we assume that people should know if they aren't working on a common moral framework. If there is a common 'moral law', 'rule of engagement' or anything else between us we should presume that there is also a moral law giver.

Of course there is much more I could say about why I do or don't believe including looking into the common sense of the Biblical narrative, looking into the archaeology and history that backs up the Biblical text, looking into the case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as three more examples.

By the by, I'm assuming "RussellTuring" is a combination of Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing. If so I find both men quite interesting. Russell for his philosophy and Turing for his developments in computation.

krudler wrote: »

so why condemn the world based on the actions of two people? if people didnt have free will then nobody would have been "led to god" as sin wouldnt have existed to begin, theres that get out of jail free card again.

How about you actually listen to what I'm going to tell you rather than presuming such nonsense? Or is this too much to ask? :pac:

He doesn't. We are condemned by our own actions, we like Adam and like Eve choose to reject God's standards in His created world. We're liable to this punishment for this reason.

Nobody can claim that they haven't violated God's standards, and as a result we are liable to His judgement.

It doesn't have to be this way due to Jesus satisfying the law on our behalf so that we can be forgiven. But to claim that we are sinless goes simply against common sense. Open the paper and you'll see what people have done today, murders, thefts, rapes, etc etc. One can scarcely do this without realising that humans are inclined towards evil.

A simpler exercise if you want to see whether or not you will fall short of God's standard is simply to read the Ten Commandments and ask yourself if you have violated any of the commandments listed. In a Christian understanding one can consider inappropriate anger under murder, and lust under adultery as Jesus included both of those in this definition.

Simply put there is no way that you can say that we haven't violated it. There is no rational way to say that there isn't something disordered about the society we live in.

krudler wrote: »

Why's it nonsensical to believe life is there to lived for what it is? and not to appease a being that will look after you in the afterlife, just not in this one. god created man as a test run for the afterlife? why not just make the world perfect to begin with with no free will and have it the way he wanted it? h wait, he can do no wrong regardless of how much wrong he does.

I'm living life for what it is. The purpose of life is to live as God intended in His creation. Unless you're positing that life is anything different than this.

Personally, I'm living in this life as fully as I can. In fact I can't say the afterlife really comes up all that much, I am living this life for a reason, and I don't aim or desire to leave this earth prematurely. I do believe there is a reason why there is this life and the next, it is in order that God can form our character and test our obedience to Him.

philologos

beanyb wrote: »

I'm not saying this in a 'you're an idiot for believing in God kind of way.' I just mean to point out that fact and reason aren't actually on your side. And that's kind of the whole point about faith...

Simply put I believe you and others with similar beliefs are wrong, and I'm quite happy to defend my side of the court.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The fall was the result of Adam and Eve using their free will to disobey God. Sin (or falling short of God's standard) entered into the world the second that they used their free will in this way because nobody had fallen short of God's standard before that point.



It's just nonsensical.

I'm not worried about what happens to me later. I've been saved by putting my trust in Jesus, I have nothing to worry about. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). What I am concerned about is helping others (mainly off-boards) to build a relationship with Him before its too late.

Do you have anything to back up your beliefs apart from a book could have been written by absolutely anyone and the "feeling in your heart" that there is a God?

I literally laugh directly at you for describing their reasoning as nonsensical.

philologos

Sacramento wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up your beliefs apart from a book could have been written by absolutely anyone and the "feeling in your heart" that there is a God?

The Bible makes good sense as I've explained in my previous post to RussellTuring. I'm quite happy to defend it on reasonable grounds. There is no absolute proof that God exists, but there is certainly good reason to believe that He does as far as I'm concerned.

Sacramento wrote: »

I literally laugh directly at you for describing their reasoning as nonsensical.

Look man, take as much time as you'd like to laugh :pac:
If that is the only positive thing I can give you today, go for it!

Personally when I see posts like yours it brings up more concern rather than laughter. That's the difference between how militant atheists post and how Christians post. Christians post out of a genuine concern and a desire to see you come to know Jesus and be saved. Militant atheists post for their own satisfaction.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible makes good sense as I've explained in my previous post to RussellTuring. I'm quite happy to defend it on reasonable grounds. There is no absolute proof that God exists, but there is certainly good reason to believe that He does as far as I'm concerned.

You can't defend unreasonable beliefs on reasonable grounds. The "good reason" you talk about, is not based on any reason, whatsoever.

Jakkass wrote: »

Look man, take as much time as you'd like to laugh :pac:
If that is the only positive thing I can give you today, go for it!

Personally when I see posts like yours it brings up more concern rather than laughter. That's the difference between how militant atheists post and how Christians post. Christians post out of a genuine concern and a desire to see you come to know Jesus and be saved. Militant atheists post for their own satisfaction.

I don't need your concern thanks very much. The concern of a person that doesn't believe in something that doesn't exist is far more valuable to me.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

How about you actually listen to what I'm going to tell you rather than presuming such nonsense? Or is this too much to ask? :pac:

He doesn't. We are condemned by our own actions, we like Adam and like Eve choose to reject God's standards in His created world. We're liable to this punishment for this reason.

Nobody can claim that they haven't violated God's standards, and as a result we are liable to His judgement.

It doesn't have to be this way due to Jesus satisfying the law on our behalf so that we can be forgiven. But to claim that we are sinless goes simply against common sense. Open the paper and you'll see what people have done today, murders, thefts, rapes, etc etc. One can scarcely do this without realising that humans are inclined towards evil.

A simpler exercise if you want to see whether or not you will fall short of God's standard is simply to read the Ten Commandments and ask yourself if you have violated any of the commandments listed. In a Christian understanding one can consider inappropriate anger under murder, and lust under adultery as Jesus included both of those in this definition.

Simply put there is no way that you can say that we haven't violated it. There is no rational way to say that there isn't something disordered about the society we live in.

Well we are created in gods image after all..

The ten commandments are man made, in a book written by men. Its insane to think people wouldnt have figured out it was wrong to murder and steal without these.

So what about people who dont/hadnt subscribed to a christian god or werent aware of the commandments? the people who were around long before the commandments or the (abhorrent) idea of original sin came to being? are they doomed for not following rules they had no idea existed? or do they get a pass?

philologos

Sacramento wrote: »

You can't defend unreasonable beliefs on reasonable grounds. The "good reason" you talk about, is not based on any reason, whatsoever.

Anyone can repeat "unreasonable" like a parrot. What is more useful to all of us in a discussion is if you can adequately explain why it is unreasonable.

Sacramento wrote: »

I don't need your concern thanks very much. The concern of a person that doesn't believe in something that doesn't exist is far more valuable to me.

The thing is that you do need it, but it is ultimately up to you to determine your destiny.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyone can repeat "unreasonable" like a parrot. What is more useful to all of us in a discussion is if you can adequately explain why it is unreasonable.



The thing is that you do need it, but it is ultimately up to you to determine your destiny.

If you read my very first post you'll see why I consider your beliefs to be unreasonable.

If you critiqued your beliefs based on scientific fact, you'll see why you are wrong. Inability to disprove a God's existence does not mean this God exists.


It's nice of you to tell me I need your concern, really, it is. But as you have already demonstrated to everyone here, you maintain the capacity to be completely wrong.

beanyb

Jakkass wrote: »

Simply put I believe you and others with similar beliefs are wrong, and I'm quite happy to defend my side of the court.

And you're more than entitled to have that belief. But believing something doesn't make it based on reason, fact or logic. And intuition is most definitely not a basis for reason.

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for this. It may not be universally accepted, but in finding a reason why this would be in common, one has to ask why this is the case. It seems that a common Creation would explain much of this. In that we are humans, and not only are we humans but our consciences are geared to reflect a higher standard, that is God's standard.

Even if we were the product of a single creator deity, we wouldn't necessarily know it. The only reason we have this concept is that humans have a tendency to spread knowledge and ideas. Is it not much more likely that this tendency is the reason we have this concept, rather than it's supposed veracity? If every culture had a similar creation story and no alternatives had been proposed, you may have a point.The fact is, we've had many different proposals to explain why we're here, with most of them eventually fading into obscurity. What is it about monotheism that makes it a valid choice above all others, save it's current popularity?

I would thoroughly recommend that you take a read of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity if you get a chance. If I knew you personally I would lend you mine, but unfortunately I don't have this privilege :pac:

It was this realisation that encouraged me in my faith when I became a Christian about 4 years ago.

Thanks for the recommendation. And you also seem to be a nice person. Next time I'm in Lucan I might send you a PM. I can't really recommend any books myself. I don't think any I read really influenced my lack of faith. I would say the Bible but you've obviously read that.

Why is it more reasonable? Well my intuition can tell me that it is more sensible that things don't come out of nothing. That includes the universe. My intuition also tells me that things of a finite age almost certainly had a cause. Most physicists as far as I know believe that the universe had its beginning roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

Intuition does not equal reason. Do you not agree with that?

My intuition can also tell me that in moral decision making people act as if there is universal morality even if they may claim that such a moral system doesn't exist. If you have wronged me, I am making a claim. One that there is a standard of right and wrong that is in common between us. The other that the other should know on this basis that they have done wrong. Otherwise how could we assume that people should know if they aren't working on a common moral framework. If there is a common 'moral law', 'rule of engagement' or anything else between us we should presume that there is also a moral law giver.

See above. I also disagree with your concept of morality. It would seem apparent to me that, given the conflicts we so often have, morality is by no means universal. I think for all intents and purposes, everyone in society has their own unique version of morality.The best we can do is try to decide on a set of rules that we agree with by and large and will submit to unless it is something with which we fundamentally disagree. Not sure how common this view is though.

Of course there is much more I could say about why I do or don't believe including looking into the common sense of the Biblical narrative, looking into the archaeology and history that backs up the Biblical text, looking into the case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as three more examples.

I'm sure there are many reasons for your faith and wouldn't expect to get a good sense of them through this medium. I do appreciate your honesty and openness which are all too rare on both sides of these conversations.

By the by, I'm assuming "RussellTuring" is a combination of Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing. If so I find both men quite interesting. Russell for his philosophy and Turing for his developments in computation.

That's correct. Being the second person to comment on this, you deserve brownie points.

It doesn't have to be this way due to Jesus satisfying the law on our behalf so that we can be forgiven. But to claim that we are sinless goes simply against common sense. Open the paper and you'll see what people have done today, murders, thefts, rapes, etc etc. One can scarcely do this without realising that humans are inclined towards evil.

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but why do you not take the good things we also do as evidence that we are inclined towards good?

krudler

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but why do you not take the good things we also do as evidence that we are inclined towards good?

when men do evil=lack of god
when men do good=influence of god

see? get of jail free card, its staggering, it truly is.

philologos

beanyb wrote: »

And you're more than entitled to have that belief. But believing something doesn't make it based on reason, fact or logic. And intuition is most definitely not a basis for reason.

True, the same applies to your atheism.

By the by, intuition and making sense of things is the only check and balance that humans have to think twice about what they hear about things. Sure, it may be inadequate but what else do we have.

The only two alternatives are to blindly accept every "fact" people may have, or to reject blindly every "fact" people may have whether legitimate or not. The middle ground is to try and determine what logic is in these things and try and see that they make sense for themselves.

It is natural for people to reject what they do not find to make sense, I reject atheism for this reason. It is illogical and nonsensical.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

True, the same applies to your atheism.

By the by, intuition and making sense of things is the only check and balance that humans have to think twice about what they hear about things. Sure, it may be inadequate but what else do we have.

Oh your God, are you insane? That's just 100% wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

The only two alternatives are to blindly accept every "fact" people may have, or to reject blindly every "fact" people may have whether legitimate or not. The middle ground is to try and determine what logic is in these things and try and see that they make sense for themselves.

They are not the only two alternatives.... You are just wrong here, like not even mildy right. What about scientific investigation process? The process of hypo-theorem to theory?

Jakkass wrote: »

It is natural for people to reject what they do not find to make sense, I reject atheism for this reason. It is illogical and nonsensical.

Wrong again, you are ignoring so much fact and documented research it hurts. You are being so ignorant it's crazy.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Well we are created in gods image after all..

Time for a quick look at the Hebrew.

In the Genesis manuscript the word is tselem it means image, but more than image, to reflect or to mirror. tselem as a result is an expression of duty. We were created in the beginning with a duty to reflect God's glory, we chose to reflect our own selfishness and as a result no longer reflected God.

krudler wrote: »

The ten commandments are man made, in a book written by men. Its insane to think people wouldnt have figured out it was wrong to murder and steal without these.

Based on your assumption they are man made. They are certainly written by man physically, but their origins are up for discussion.

I think man knows right and wrong primarily from their consciences which have been given by their Creator. This is why non-Christians can act ethically because they are inclined by their God-given conscience to do so. I don't believe that morality is a Christian-only territory contrary to popular belief.

krudler wrote: »

So what about people who dont/hadnt subscribed to a christian god or werent aware of the commandments? the people who were around long before the commandments or the (abhorrent) idea of original sin came to being? are they doomed for not following rules they had no idea existed? or do they get a pass?

Original sin isn't in the Bible. Personally I don't believe that original sin refers to the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve, rather it refers to our inclination mainly being towards what is evil rather than towards what is good.

I believe that people before Jesus can be justified by their faith and trust in God, or for those who didn't know about the concept of God by living by the example He had set in their conscience. This is a grey area in Christianity though.

Christianity isn't about "passing" or "failing", it is about whether or not one has established a relationship with God as their Creator by accepting the forgiveness paid for them by Christ on the cross.

philologos

Sacramento wrote: »

Oh your God, are you insane? That's just 100% wrong.

How about explaining why it is wrong rather than just stating it?

Sacramento wrote: »

They are not the only two alternatives.... You are just wrong here, like not even mildy right. What about scientific investigation process? The process of hypo-theorem to theory?

Largely based on establishing a coherent logical process between the findings and the empirical evidence. It still is largely about making sense of things.

Sacramento wrote: »

Wrong again, you are ignoring so much fact and documented research it hurts. You are being so ignorant it's crazy.

Be more specific. I can't really see the point of discussing with you if you're just going to spout things without explanation.

What research demonstrates that atheism is more reasonable? :pac:

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that people before Jesus can be justified by their faith and trust in God, or for those who didn't know about the concept of God by living by the example He had set in their conscience. This is a grey area in Christianity though.

but how can the trust or have faith in something that they arent aware is supposed to exist?

a god given conscience? meaning we can choose to be good or evil because god instilled us with both notions, its free will without free will essentially.

If god instilled you with a leaning towards evil, by doing good instead are you still rejecting gods will? what if god intended there to be evil people in the world? no dark without light and all that.