How to convert an Atheist? By example only or argument?
Moderator: grand_puba
- grand_puba
- Moderator
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm
How to convert an Atheist? By example only or argument?
This topic was originally introduced and separated from the following thread and post:
The Atheist's proof for God
The Atheist's proof for God
Have you read the Rules?
-
- Banned
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: TX
Ok m273p15c I think enough already lol.. It seems like when I see people like yourself wearing a topic down like this with semantics, it is almost as if you are trying to prove to yourself that christianity is real to substantiate your own beliefs, and that you need to constantly back up facts, verses, and data from mainstream science to further validate this. That would constitute more as a Christian apologist, not a real Christian who accepts the message of truth simply for what it is, with childlike faith (Matt 18:3-4). That "God" is perhaps something ineffible which cannot be measured (at least not by man), and that we are all on this earth entitled to own our beliefs and viewpoints whatever they may be (even if you think they are completely bogus and wrong).
*And if you think LRR is creating a foolish argument, then isn't there a verse stated by Paul for avoiding such arguments? Or maybe he is pinching a nerve that is too close to your actual beliefs.
I'm a gnostic, so I've seen and experienced these types of battles before, usually from Christians who don't have a clue about what gnosticism or gnosis is really about, they think it is some kind of drug-like "high" or something.![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
*And if you think LRR is creating a foolish argument, then isn't there a verse stated by Paul for avoiding such arguments? Or maybe he is pinching a nerve that is too close to your actual beliefs.
I'm a gnostic, so I've seen and experienced these types of battles before, usually from Christians who don't have a clue about what gnosticism or gnosis is really about, they think it is some kind of drug-like "high" or something.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
no pinched nerves - only love, hoping against hope
I understand an argument over semantics to be about the meanings of words, where 2 people agree in thought, but they don't like the words the other is using to convey the thoughts:Mark Shepherd wrote:Ok m273p15c I think enough already lol.. It seems like when I see people like yourself wearing a topic down like this with semantics, it is almost as if you are trying to prove to yourself that christianity is real to substantiate your own beliefs, and that you need to constantly back up facts, verses, and data from mainstream science to further validate this.
Such arguing is pointless, I agree. However, I believe my differences with LRR are concrete, arguable, understandable, and reconcilable - assuming the one in error is also open minded.se·man·tics (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.a ... =semantics)
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Please do not mistake my persistence for some need to prop up my own self-confidence. I persist in these forums and elsewhere, because I care about the other person and hope. A person who freely permits a person to plunge headlong into destructive error is no kind of friend. Love does not give up so easily (I Corinthians 13:4-8; Hebrews 12:3-13).
No, actually we are commanded to have a defense ready:Mark Shepherd wrote:That would constitute more as a Christian apologist, not a real Christian who accepts the message of truth simply for what it is, with childlike faith (Matt 18:3-4).
Guess what the Greek word is for the phrase "give a defense". It is "apologia". Look familiar?Peter wrote:But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (I Peter 3:15-16)
Therefore, in essence, each Christian is commanded to be a ready apologist! That does not eliminate our faith, even a child-like faith, which is pure and humble. Faith can and should be based on evidence, as suggested by the above verse; however, such faith can still be pure, sincere, and humble as required by Matthew 18:3-4.Strong's wrote:627 apologia {ap-ol-og-ee'-ah} Meaning:
1) verbal defence, speech in defence 2) a reasoned statement or argument
Furthermore, my use of science as evidence is necessary in this case, because it is all that LRR will accept. I am applying this verse to our argument:
I am arguing from LRR's accepted plane so that I may somehow reach him. Ultimately, I think the amount of evidence required from this plane is relatively small. By this, I mean that a great intellect or awareness of science is not required to understand the universe's need for a Creator (I Corinthians 1:18-26). As given in my previous post, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an articulation of our common experience. It is something that anyone can see, regardless of education.Paul wrote:For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (I Corinthians 9:19-23)
Yes, I agree that we are entitled to our own beliefs. God seeks volunteers (Psalm 110:3), so who am I to force conversion? Again, I persist because new arguments are raised, or because I have an opportunity to refine my wording and try again. My language should manifest this attitude. If it does not, I would appreciate the correction.Mark Shepherd wrote:That "God" is perhaps something ineffible which cannot be measured (at least not by man), and that we are all on this earth entitled to own our beliefs and viewpoints whatever they may be (even if you think they are completely bogus and wrong).
The argument may eventually prove to be foolish, and at some point I will disengage for the very reason you mention. However, error should always be combatted:Mark Shepherd wrote:*And if you think LRR is creating a foolish argument, then isn't there a verse stated by Paul for avoiding such arguments? Or maybe he is pinching a nerve that is too close to your actual beliefs.
The arguments that Paul advocated we should avoid are ones that lead to no profit:Jude wrote:Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)
Surely, all would agree that arguments over the existence of God are extremely relevant, practical, and therefore profitable - until it becomes apparent that the participants' minds are closed. Then, the argument becomes unprofitable, but not because of the reasoning itself.Paul wrote:Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. (II Timothy 2:14-18)
Maybe you should start a new thread where you can explain your version of gnosticism and others can ask questions.Mark Shepherd wrote:I'm a gnostic, so I've seen and experienced these types of battles before, usually from Christians who don't have a clue about what gnosticism or gnosis is really about, they think it is some kind of drug-like "high" or something.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
-
- Banned
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: TX
Re: no pinched nerves - only love, hoping against hope
I have to continue to play devil's advocate here, perhaps it is the Gnostic side of mem273p15c wrote:Guess what the Greek word is for the phrase "give a defense". It is "apologia". Look familiar?Peter wrote:But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (I Peter 3:15-16)
Therefore, in essence, each Christian is commanded to be a ready apologist! That does not eliminate our faith, even a child-like faith, which is pure and humble. Faith can and should be based on evidence, as suggested by the above verse; however, such faith can still be pure, sincere, and humble as required by Matthew 18:3-4.Strong's wrote:627 apologia {ap-ol-og-ee'-ah} Meaning:
1) verbal defence, speech in defence 2) a reasoned statement or argument
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Jesus is the main reason and basis for my faith and beliefs not Peter; I don't believe Peter died on the cross for the remission of our sins. If you believe that you have to make a defense for yourself for your Christian cause, then I'm sure christians such as yourself should probably take that above verse very literally. However as a gnostic, I believe Jesus postulated the truer message of turning the other cheek (Matt 5:39) and leading as a pure example to follow — being "doers of the word" and will of the father (James 1:22, Matt 7:21). This verse from 1 Peter might be more consistent with taking the higher road:
-----------------------------------------------------------Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
—1 Peter 5:1-4
So the point of Jesus the Nazarene's message and role on this earth was to see how many future christians would win a biblical spiritual based argument? Interesting verse but I don't see how it justifies using "science" to validate things that were taken for pure acts of faith two thousand years ago. I'm pretty sure that Paul wouldn't have quoted lines from Einstein or provided the laws of inertia from Isaac Newton to prove the existence of God. If so, then perhaps he was missing the point of the Nazarene — as well as anyone else who feels they have provide evidence of their "faith," to win or be in defense to someone else. The whole notion sounds extremely silly when you think about it.m273p15c wrote: Furthermore, my use of science as evidence is necessary in this case, because it is all that LRR will accept. I am applying this verse to our argument:
Paul wrote:For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (I Corinthians 9:19-23)
P.S. When I constantly see people such as the ICR and others trying to use Science (such as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, string theory, the expanding cosmos, etc. ) whenever it suits their needs and viewpoints to back up a biblical religious argument, I see that as dangerously close to falling guilty of this verse:
Something perhaps to digress upon.Jesus the Nazarene wrote:"And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:7-9).
When confronted with those who did not even believe in the authority of Scripture, Paul did reference and argue from evidence outside of Scripture, plus he used miracles to confirm his authority:Mark Shepherd wrote:I'm pretty sure that Paul wouldn't have quoted lines from Einstein or provided the laws of inertia from Isaac Newton to prove the existence of God. If so, then perhaps he was missing the point of the Nazarene — as well as anyone else who feels they have provide evidence of their "faith," to win or be in defense to someone else.
Luke, the inspired historian, wrote:And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother's womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, "Stand up straight on your feet!" And he leaped and walked. Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. (Acts 14:8-18)
First, notice the use of miracles, but second, notice how Paul calls attention to God's witness to us through creation!
Again, notice how Paul deals with the pagan Athenians:
Luke, the inspired historian wrote:Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. ... for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. (Acts 17:22-29)
Paul used both the expanse of creation and even their own philosophers to show the foolishness of idolatry.
Read the book of Acts. Virtually every recorded encounter begins with preaching that is based on logic, reason, and evidence, whether it is miracles, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy - or even nature.
Now, I am not saying that we should pull out our college physics, chemistry, and biology books to reach the lost?! No! But, we have to start where someone is! We cannot quote Scripture to someone who denies its inspiration. And, we cannot argue from the nature of God to the atheist. We have to start on common ground. Or, using the passage from a previous post, "To the Jew, I became a Jew ...".
Finally, keep in mind it was God who saw fit to provide miracles and fulfilled prophecy as evidence, witness to the identity of Jesus, validate the authority of the apostles, and confirm the Word:
... how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Hebrews 2:3-4)
To deny the significance and need for evidence, you must either deny the wisdom of the Lord or the inspiration of Scriptures!John, the apostle, wrote:If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. ... I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish -- the very works that I do -- bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. ... You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. (John 5:31-39)
...
Can Christians reach others by their example? Yes, of course:
However, this is a tactic of last resort, when words fail ("if some do not obey the word"). Nowhere do I see people evangelizing just by saying, "Look at me. I'm a good person. Don't you want to be a good person like me." (Even then, that would be an argument of persuasion.) No, they evangelized by telling the "good news". When people disagreed, first century Christians would argue - not for pride, glory, etc. - but, for the salvation of the disputant and those who quietly listened:Peter wrote:Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. (I Peter 3:1-2)
I believe the Scriptures are very clear. However, the part that concerns me is your willingness to quickly dismiss some passages while clinging to others:Luke, the inspired historian, wrote:Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. (Acts 6:9-10)
And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. ... And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. (Acts 9:26-29)
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. ... Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them ... (Acts 15:1-7)
How else would you take it? Figuratively? Upon what basis? You see, we should have consistent rules for interpreting which language is figurative and which is literal; otherwise, we risk our integrity by subjectively throwing out any passage that refutes our cherished doctrine, because it is "figurative". ... I try to interpret the Bible figuratively as I interpret all literature and language - only when the context demands it. For examples, John said that his message was one of "signs" and "figures" (Revelation 1:1-3, 10). Ezekiel's and Daniel's fantastic dreams and visions are clearly figurative.Mark Shepherd wrote:If you believe that you have to make a defense for yourself for your Christian cause, then I'm sure christians such as yourself should probably take that above verse very literally.
I believe your notion of faith is misguided. Faith is trust based on evidence. God has provided sufficient evidence to garner our trust. However, we do not know many of the things He has promised to be true (for example, heaven, hell, sin, angels, etc.). Therefore, it is faith and not sight. We trust these things are true, which trust is based on evidence (miracles, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, nature, etc.).Mark Shepherd wrote:Interesting verse but I don't see how it justifies using "science" to validate things that were taken for pure acts of faith two thousand years ago.
Yes, Jesus is the foundation of our salvation. However, you know nothing about Jesus, except through the apostles. Therefore, they play an essential and vital role in our salvation as messenger.Mark Shepherd wrote:Jesus is the main reason and basis for my faith and beliefs not Peter; I don't believe Peter died on the cross for the remission of our sins.
Furthermore, by Jesus' own words, to reject the apostles' message is to reject Jesus Himself:Paul wrote:Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, ... (Ephesians 2:19-20)
Yes, Jesus died for us, but He also established the apostles and prophets as His ambassadors. If we reject them, then we reject Him.Luke wrote:"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10:16)
...Paul wrote:Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. (II Corinthians 5:18-20)
I did some reading of Mitchell's book you mentioned. I am familiar with Jefferson's objections and others like him. It concerns me greatly that you would use that as a reference.
Now, I do not know what is your belief and practice, but if you subjectively pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to keep, then there is nothing I can say. You have set yourself up as God, because any passage I quote as authoritative, you can easily dismiss as being not representative of the historical Jesus. It is not only incredibly convenient, but incredibly subjective and therefore undebatable. If that is your practice, you cannot avoid effectively establishing yourself as God, because you will be the final and only arbiter as to which parts of Scripture are truly from God.
Answering Loose Ends:
Just because we are turn the other cheek, that does not mean we cannot answer the unbelievers arguments. Just because we are commanded to do the Word, that does not mean we cannot teach it. You are jumping to a conclusion that cannot be supported by the words. Furthermore, the above examples of Christians disputing with those in error - and many more not listed - abound to show the error here.Mark Shepherd wrote:However as a gnostic, I believe Jesus postulated the truer message of turning the other cheek (Matt 5:39) and leading as a pure example to follow — being "doers of the word" and will of the father (James 1:22, Matt 7:21).
Again, just because elders are to be examples, that does not mean that they cannot show the error of the false teacher. Rather, it is a requirement that they be able and skilled in doing so:Mark Shepherd wrote:This verse from 1 Peter might be more consistent with taking the higher road:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
—1 Peter 5:1-4
...Paul wrote:For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, ... holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. (Titus 1:5-11)
No, this is clearly not the whole point, but evangelism is part of our mission as Christians. Within that sub-mission, we must occasionally answer error, which can be likened to a spiritual battle:Mark Shepherd wrote:So the point of Jesus the Nazarene's message and role on this earth was to see how many future christians would win a biblical spiritual based argument? ... The whole notion sounds extremely silly when you think about it.
My friend, I fear you are turning away many pertinent passages as merely "interesting" or "figurative", while inserting meaning into others that is neither necessary nor consistent with the context. I hope you will rethink your position. If I have misunderstood you, please forgive my earnest concern.Paul wrote:For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, (II Corinthians 10:3-5)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
-
- Banned
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: TX
Hmm.. Interesting topic heading for a discussion, I wish I would have put some more thought into it. I have met many Atheists and most of them I see as inconvertible (if that word even applies
). Many of them have come from strong fundamentalist religious backgrounds, and I believe that has had a very detrimental reciprocal effect on them; bashing all of these morals and ideals into their head at a very early age, which over time I think has created a very strong bitter resentment to the faith. I don't see that as really ever fading away. If it were possible to convert an atheist I would think by example and love would be the best and only way (1 Peter 5:1-4, John 13:34-35).
Arguing from other Christians, in my opinion only seems to strengthen their cause, which most of them are prepared for with such scientific rational arguments. That is why I believe a person's personal faith is something which must be day to day lived; and that a belief in God will always be a belief in something ineffible — in which their is no Calculation or equation for. The people who think otherwise, I feel are just beating the deadhorse and getting nowhere.
Webster's definition for "Faith"
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Arguing from other Christians, in my opinion only seems to strengthen their cause, which most of them are prepared for with such scientific rational arguments. That is why I believe a person's personal faith is something which must be day to day lived; and that a belief in God will always be a belief in something ineffible — in which their is no Calculation or equation for. The people who think otherwise, I feel are just beating the deadhorse and getting nowhere.
Webster's definition for "Faith"
Main Entry: Faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
we should back up...
Mark,
Just because some atheist grew up in "fundamentalist" families, we should not assume that all "fundamentalist" religions are bad. Furthermore, we should not assume that it is bad to teach the truth to our children beginning at an early age. In fact, the Bible requires it, both by example and command:
...
In regards to the basis for faith and conversion, I do not know what more to say. Clearly, we are operating from different platforms. If you accept Noah Webster, over Paul, Peter, and other inspired writers, then we should stop right here and discuss that first; otherwise, we will never come to unity. ... But, I will offer this -- Webster's definition includes multiple definitions, which must be selected based on the context. Therefore, just because the word "faith" can be used in absence of "proof", we should not assume that it always means there is no proof. Furthermore, I have already conceded that the case for God's existence or non-existence cannot be "proved" in an absolute sense. It is a question of "evidence". Somewhat like a court case, in absence of an eye-witness, the jury must examine the arguments and judge which side has the most compelling weight of evidence. Consequently, Webster fails to sustain the case on two accounts, even if we assume he is a greater expert witness than Paul, Peter, etc.
Since I am beginning to repeat myself, I will close with this one last verse and observation:
Finally, keep in mind that there is a kind of dispute that is both loving and essential, and it is a dispute that is consistent with and arises from faith. Notice that Stephen was "full of faith", which produced the evangelistic efforts that the non-believers resisted, and when he was falsely accused, he did not retaliate with hatred. Instead, he exemplified the "face of an angel".
It is a dreadful mistake to assume that all disagreements with those of different belief are produced by hatred (lack of love) or lead to it. I have known atheists who were converted because of the patient persistence of a friend who was willing to work through all their arguments and questions in a loving way. I am not saying that didactic evangelism is the only way. (It is not - I Peter 3:1-2.) However, it would seem presumptuous to exclude the significance of logical evangelism in the light of Scriptures' commands and examples.
Just because some atheist grew up in "fundamentalist" families, we should not assume that all "fundamentalist" religions are bad. Furthermore, we should not assume that it is bad to teach the truth to our children beginning at an early age. In fact, the Bible requires it, both by example and command:
Many of the problems arise when parents teach human traditions as the commandments of God, or they practice something different from which they have taught their children. Children are the most astute observers. If their parents are hypocritical, the children will perceive it. In such cases, it is no wonder that children grow up to become atheists or very liberal Christians. ... The solution is not less teaching and discipline, but more teaching and more consistent living.Moses wrote:And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)
Again, parents, specifically fathers in this verse, are commanded to raise their children to understand and walk after the way of the Lord. Furthermore, this verse sets such training in contrast and opposition to provoking them to wrath. Therefore, teaching our children to be a Christian cannot be directly linked with a bitter, resentful adult, because this verse sets them in contrast to each other!Paul wrote:Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1-4)
...
In regards to the basis for faith and conversion, I do not know what more to say. Clearly, we are operating from different platforms. If you accept Noah Webster, over Paul, Peter, and other inspired writers, then we should stop right here and discuss that first; otherwise, we will never come to unity. ... But, I will offer this -- Webster's definition includes multiple definitions, which must be selected based on the context. Therefore, just because the word "faith" can be used in absence of "proof", we should not assume that it always means there is no proof. Furthermore, I have already conceded that the case for God's existence or non-existence cannot be "proved" in an absolute sense. It is a question of "evidence". Somewhat like a court case, in absence of an eye-witness, the jury must examine the arguments and judge which side has the most compelling weight of evidence. Consequently, Webster fails to sustain the case on two accounts, even if we assume he is a greater expert witness than Paul, Peter, etc.
Since I am beginning to repeat myself, I will close with this one last verse and observation:
First, notice that Stephen was equipped with the ability to work miracles, which produced "wonder" and served as a "sign". Second, Stephen "disputed" with these unbelievers. Third, his words could not be resisted by honest men (so, they resorted to false-witnesses and killing him). Therefore, like Stephen, Christians must be prepared to dispute the error of others, including non-believers, using evidence (such as the historical record of miracles) and spiritual words of wisdom (arguments from Scripture, common-sense, fulfilled prophesy, etc.). If we have done our homework, and are "filled with the Spirit" (compare Ephesians 5:18-19 with Colossians 3:16), then they should not be able to resist the wisdom by which we speak too! Of course, they may likewise resort to unscrupulous retorts, like in Stephen's case, but we leave that up to God to resolve.Luke, the inspired historian, wrote: 8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
9 Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.
11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
12 And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council.
13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law;
14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
15 And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel. (Acts 6:8-14)
Finally, keep in mind that there is a kind of dispute that is both loving and essential, and it is a dispute that is consistent with and arises from faith. Notice that Stephen was "full of faith", which produced the evangelistic efforts that the non-believers resisted, and when he was falsely accused, he did not retaliate with hatred. Instead, he exemplified the "face of an angel".
It is a dreadful mistake to assume that all disagreements with those of different belief are produced by hatred (lack of love) or lead to it. I have known atheists who were converted because of the patient persistence of a friend who was willing to work through all their arguments and questions in a loving way. I am not saying that didactic evangelism is the only way. (It is not - I Peter 3:1-2.) However, it would seem presumptuous to exclude the significance of logical evangelism in the light of Scriptures' commands and examples.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
Re: we should back up...
I am with Mark Shepard on this.m273p15c wrote:Mark,
Just because some atheist grew up in "fundamentalist" families, we should not assume that all "fundamentalist" religions are bad. Furthermore, we should not assume that it is bad to teach the truth to our children beginning at an early age. In fact, the Bible requires it, both by example and command:
And I find it interesting that some Christians whom I am close with will come to me asking me "Not to put that stuff in our young peoples heads" "It isn't right how you are getting them to question their faith with all of this human reasoning."
Well something to that effect anyway. But what is interesting to me is the brainwashing from birth that is clearly okay to do if it is your perceived faith only based truth of X-ianity. At least I come at individuals when they have a choice to make about the world around them with informed knowledge. Others teach them hell fire fear from birth and threats of withdrawing from them their entire family and friend group if they do not conform to Christ. I would love to see the even higher numbers that would be lost to your cause if instead of poor innocent babies being brought up in Christianity, we instead had completely neutral individuals of age who then got to hear both sides never hearing either before and choosing. (And no, I am not speaking of spiritually believing foreigners who just change from one god to the next when Christianity hits their country.) Neutral individuals who got to hear both sides after seeing reality function as reality with absolutely no supernatural phenomenon occuring their entire lives and see that their parents were lying when they said Santa exists so why not the same with these gods they speak. Lets have them suddenly sit down and listen to tales of parting of seas, raising of dead, turning water to wine etc for the first time at the nice age of 18 or twenty as opposed to the facts that reality that are around them and very tangible that facts reality is what it is and to for nature to be commanded it first be obeyed and that talking to spirits doesn't heal the sick rather Doctors and white blood cell counts.
Reality would prove itself quite nicely if the people they trusted from birth hadn't corrupted their reality compass with inconsistencies that otherwise would be baulked at.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR
this is getting us nowhere!
This is prejudicial argumentation based on the "bad apple" principle. Just because some Christians are practicing their faith out of tradition, one should not assume that all Christians act apart from reason and evidence. Neither, should one assume that weakness in the believer invalidates the belief system. I too could tell tales of hypocritical atheists who practiced atheism, just because they were born into that environment. Would that mean that all atheists are that way? Furthermore, would that imply that atheism is wrong because some atheists are not as committed or studious as others? Where is the consistency here?LRR wrote:And I find it interesting that some Christians whom I am close with will come to me asking me "Not to put that stuff in our young peoples heads" "It isn't right how you are getting them to question their faith with all of this human reasoning."
So, you would whole-heartedly embrace removal of the doctrine of evolution and humanism from the public school system? I wonder how many people would embrace evolution, if they had not been taught it regularly without alternative or exception until they were 18. What if they did not have to deal with the pressure of gaining tenure (or getting a job), facing scoffers, or generally dealing the atheistic academic community? Seeing how that nobody witnesses evolution their entire life, I think these neutral individuals would have no problem rejecting it, if their scientific mind was not skewed from birth.LRR wrote:But what is interesting to me is the brainwashing from birth that is clearly okay to do if it is your perceived faith only based truth of X-ianity. At least I come at individuals when they have a choice to make about the world around them with informed knowledge. Others teach them hell fire fear from birth and threats of withdrawing from them their entire family and friend group if they do not conform to Christ. I would love to see the even higher numbers that would be lost to your cause if instead of poor innocent babies being brought up in Christianity, we instead had completely neutral individuals of age who then got to hear both sides never hearing either before and choosing.
Again, where is the consistency? If it is despicable for Christians to teach their children about Christ, then is it not equally despicable for Atheists to teach their children about evolution? What about you? Will you teach your children about atheism, Ayn Rand, evolution, humanism, etc.? Or, will you wait until they are 18 and walking out the door to teach them about Christianity, religion, atheism, evolution, and other points about origins and destiny? If they decided to become a Christian, would you express your disapproval?
... I think neither of you understand "brainwashing" or "argumentation".
True "argumentation" does not rely on insults, prejudicial or emotional arguments, intimidation, mocking, etc. It relies on the truth. Unfortunately, none of us are perfect communicators, neither do we have perfect grasp of all knowledge. Therefore, it is inevitable that multiple rounds of discussion must occur. That is neither hateful nor arrogant. We simply must be patient in trying to understand each other, while we try to refine our own understanding. Argumentation is the process of exchanging ideas, asking questions, answering questions, building a case based on facts and reasoning, which includes testing of that case.
"Brainwashing" is not just teaching or dissemination of information. Neither does the use of reinforcing discipline necessitate the label of "brainwashing"; otherwise, our entire public school system would constitute "brainwashing". Finally, social bolstering also does not constitute "brainwashing". Every extracurricular activity under the sun includes some form of social encouragement. If you stop showing up to soccer practice, the coach calls you. If you stop attending any user group, friends call you. I daresay that you could not drop out of any atheistic organization without someone noticing your absence, contacting you, and encouraging you to resume attendance. Furthermore, I cannot think of any society that extends equal benefits to members and non-members alike. Should a gym allow you to continue using their equipment, once you have stopped paying your dues? These things are customary and by no means constitute "brainwashing".
The line is crossed when one is disallowed the freedom to learn about alternatives and choose them. I have no problem with the atheist presenting his case to Christians. My only concern is when he is allowed to have an exclusive platform, whether it is the public school system or any other forum. Furthermore, I encourage the use of debate to educate young and old alike. I welcome your arguments, LRR, because I believe truth has nothing to fear. Likewise, those who are truly committed to truth also having nothing to fear. If the atheist is right, then he does us us all a favor by presenting his case. If the Christian is right, then he also assists all who will listen. Only lies live in the dark, avoid the light of public inspection, maintain a stranglehold through dishonest tactics, and take pot-shots at their opponents.
So, if you have a rational argument, let's hear it! Otherwise, please forgo the prejudicial accusations.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
Re: this is getting us nowhere!
Hence I used the word SOME. Some is a word to describe a particular group or part of a whole.m273p15c wrote:This is prejudicial argumentation based on the "bad apple" principle. Just because some Christians are practicing their faith out of tradition, one should not assume that all Christians act apart from reason and evidence. Neither, should one assume that weakness in the believer invalidates the belief system. I too could tell tales of hypocritical atheists who practiced atheism, just because they were born into that environment. Would that mean that all atheists are that way? Furthermore, would that imply that atheism is wrong because some atheists are not as committed or studious as others? Where is the consistency here?LRR wrote:And I find it interesting that some Christians whom I am close with will come to me asking me "Not to put that stuff in our young peoples heads" "It isn't right how you are getting them to question their faith with all of this human reasoning."
Science is a subject taught in the public school system.
the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Since science is taught in our school system and the evolutionary theory is completely scientific in its basis and conclusions, as a result such is taught in schools as a Theory for the beginnings and furthering of life. So far, it has not been punched with holes and is the most likely scenario based upon the evidences observed. Even after many attempts by the religious right to veil its god theory by calling it such a name as "intelligent design" and attempting to use "irreducible simplicity" as begging for a creator, the intelligent design faith based idea has been slammed in court and the gavel dropped on it as not being a scientific method drawn theory.
Now, I can understand one brainwashing their children's minds with their beliefs. However it deeply saddens me that in a day and age of such wonder and technology, people are still in the stone age as it applies to mystic beliefs and magical powers. The days of enchanted talismans should have decayed long ago, yet fear has kept some still looking toward the skies for answers from their spirits, or Spirit.
I wonder why it is that so many in the academic community are in fact atheists? Their learning has just made them too big for their britches I suppose. Once someone goes and gets an education, it isn't the education that makes no room for god, it is ego. Right?
I never stated that you didn't have a right to brainwash your children. Again, you have a horrible habit of reading something an twisting it to say what you wish it to, even if it never in fact said such. I stated that I have encountered "SOME individuals who have asked me to stop filling their young adults minds with...." and my response to those individuals. I said nothing of not allowing or attempting to prevent your brainwashing. If your women choose to be owned and under heel, I can only wag my head in
![disgust](./images/smilies/disgust.gif)
In my last response I simply stated what I believe to be a certainty: that if we took neutral individuals who had just lived life free of religion and the threats from the supernatural and then at 18 gave them the logical order of humanism and then the supernatural aspects of mysticism or Christianity, few would ever even consider mysticism. The same as few would consider Santa Claus. However, it is quite easy to have a child believing in Santa Claus is it not? And to to extent that they would even argue the point to their mocking friends at school if it is an especially sad case in which the parents have allowed the charade to go on a bit too long and the child is 9 or 10 years old. I have seen it, believe me and it is quite sad. Especially when the child is finally forced to see reality and the foolishness they had stood up so defiantly for. To me, this is the perfect example of the gullibility of children that can be strung along for just about however long the parents wish for it to. Now, picture all the child's friends, family and acquaintances all believing in good ole saint nick as well as preaching distrust of those who do not believe in such things. This farce could go one for quite sometime with horribly damaging consequences to the child's grasp on reality as opposed to fantasy. Or as I have previously gone over with you- The axioms of existence- Existence, Consciousness and Identification.
Proper identification of reality would reveal that deer can't fly and fat men can't fit down chimney pipes. However a skewed vision of reality would make such a MIRACULOUS feat completely possible and in fact quite believable if this Santa Clause had the power of a god.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR
deeper into nowheresville :-(
I know you used the word "some", but you insinuated much more. ... Please bear with me a second: Would you deny that hypocritical and unethical atheists exists? No, we all know that there are some atheists, who are an embarrassment to your cause. However, I consider that a cheap shot to even mention it, for all the reasons I stated in the previous posts. I cannot assume they represent you or your belief system; furthermore, I cannot assume they are typical of all atheists; therefore, I do not consider it relevant to the points at hand. ... But, you did bring it up. Why? Do you think this represents just a few fringe believers? Or, is it because you think the typical Christian is acting out of tradition, repression, fear, etc.? Let's see:LRR wrote:Hence I used the word SOME. Some is a word to describe a particular group or part of a whole.
You may have said "some", but you insinuated much more! Otherwise, what is your point in even bringing it up? Were you deliberately trying to cloud the issue?LRR wrote:In my last response I simply stated what I believe to be a certainty: that if we took neutral individuals who had just lived life free of religion and the threats from the supernatural and then at 18 gave them the logical order of humanism and then the supernatural aspects of mysticism or Christianity, few would ever even consider mysticism. (Emphasis mine, m273p15c)
The main point here, as it has evolved (pun intended), is that it is generally acceptable and understandable for parents to teach their children about their faith, whether it is Christianity or atheism. Christians and atheist use some similar techniques to indoctrinate their children. I would accuse neither of brainwashing, because it does not fit the definition. My complaint is that you have been hypocritical in your inconsistent labeling of "brainwashing". If Christians are guilty of "brainwashing", then so are atheists, because they basically employ the same techniques. I believe you condemn what you would be unwilling to repudiate and sacrifice, indoctrination of your own children.
Now, in regards to evolution being promoted in the school system, which I believe to exemplify an inconsistency in the humanist' accusations, you countered with:
I am sorry, but the theory of evolution is not scientific, despite your assertion. All things science conform to the scientific method, something that most students are taught from grade school, which I would hope is common knowledge by now:LRR wrote:... Since science is taught in our school system and the evolutionary theory is completely scientific in its basis and conclusions, as a result such is taught in schools as a Theory for the beginnings and furthering of life. So far, it has not been punched with holes and is the most likely scenario based upon the evidences observed. ...
In short, something must be observable, testable, and repeatable before we can apply the Scientific Method to a topic. If we cannot experiment upon a subject, then we cannot classify the subject as "science".Wikipedia wrote:Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
...
Elements of scientific method
There are many ways of outlining the basic method shared by all fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is wide agreement in the scientific community and among philosophers of science. There are, however, disagreements about some aspects.
The following set of methodological elements and organization of procedures tends to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of social sciences. In the social sciences mathematical and statistical methods of verification and hypotheses testing may be less stringent. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will resemble the cycle described below.
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:(Scientific Method -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
- Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
- Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
- Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
- Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Evolution relates to origins. It cannot be observed, tested, or reproduced. Only conjecture sustains it. You may say, "No, evolution is based on evidence!" However, the same evidence can easily be used to support creation. Furthermore, evolution requires dismissal of several key pieces of evidence that torpedo its foundation. Just google the finds related to tissue being found on the T-Rex bone. I could go on and on, but it's off topic. ... The point is that evolution is not science, because it does not conform or yield itself to the scientific method. It is faith and cornerstone of the humanist religion. Yet, it is taught in school as fact. Would you be willing to jettison it from the school system? Again, where is the consistency?
I disagree. How does this help answer anything? This is prejudicial reasoning - nothing more.LRR wrote:In my last response I simply stated what I believe to be a certainty: that if we took neutral individuals who had just lived life free of religion and the threats from the supernatural and then at 18 gave them the logical order of humanism and then the supernatural aspects of mysticism or Christianity, few would ever even consider mysticism.
About Santa Claus and Jesus, if you would like to start a separate thread comparing them, I would be happy to join you and help contrast them. The evidence and the audience are not remotely comparable, and I would be happy to debate that with you.
That being said, I have not yet learned your opinion on the original point of this thread. What do you think is the most effective, best, or right method for a Christian to reach an atheist?
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
-
- Banned
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: TX
Yeah it almost seems like m273p15c is just here for the sole basis of arguing his "always is right opinion" based exclusively on literalist interpretations of bible verses, and that is the only way of seeking the truth. All one has to do is look at the shattered and fragmented history of the christian church, to see that there could definitely be room for improvement to the faith. To stick constantly by the old school Fundamentalist cause is like a spit in the face to people like Jefferson and other great thinkers of the enlightenment who helped pave the way for individual human freedoms such as outlined in the Constitution. God, I shutter at the thought of what kind of government we would have had if left to the likes of the Puritans. In my opinion Fundamentalists thinkers are really bogging down progress in America now — both intellectually, scientific, and spiritually. It may have worked for the first two hundred years of this country's existence, but I think it's seriously time to move on now. To condemn someone because they read other books besides the bible is absurd. There are other books out there besides the bible, other lively fields of knowledge, other beliefs out there (less repressive), and there are other ways for an individual seeking their own interpretation of God.
Even though we might disagree on some things, I am certain we would probably get along quite nicely as far as our ability to look at all sides of the scope go. Let me guess, you are a fan of Ron Paul?Mark Shepherd wrote:Yeah it almost seems like m273p15c is just here for the sole basis of arguing his "always is right opinion" based exclusively on literalist interpretations of bible verses, and that is the only way of seeking the truth. All one has to do is look at the shattered and fragmented history of the christian church, to see that there could definitely be room for improvement to the faith. To stick constantly by the old school Fundamentalist cause is like a spit in the face to people like Jefferson and other great thinkers of the enlightenment who helped pave the way for individual human freedoms such as outlined in the Constitution. God, I shutter at the thought of what kind of government we would have had if left to the likes of the Puritans. In my opinion Fundamentalists thinkers are really bogging down progress in America now — both intellectually, scientific, and spiritually. It may have worked for the first two hundred years of this country's existence, but I think it's seriously time to move on now. To condemn someone because they read other books besides the bible is absurd. There are other books out there besides the bible, other lively fields of knowledge, other beliefs out there (less repressive), and there are other ways for an individual seeking their own interpretation of God.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR
- grand_puba
- Moderator
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm
LRR and Mark Shepherd banned...
All right you two. Apparently you are both fresh out of good arguments, because you have resorted to poking at this board and one of its members. If you had something intelligent left to say, I'd tolerate you for a while longer. But, I have had enough. You are both banned.
Let's be clear, shall we? Does this forum (meaning me and the majority of its members) exhibit a Christian stance? Yes. However, we tolerate all kinds of religious backgrounds: atheism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on. We appreciate and respect all kinds of people, as long as they can deal respectfully too. Whenever someone breaks down into name-calling, innuendos, baseless remarks, or insinuatory attacks, it is an indication that they have run out of real ammo; otherwise, they would use it. I don't care what your religious conclusions are, nobody will be tolerated who cannot deal patiently, respectfully, and honorably with others.
JSM17, sledford, will, Jarrod, SimplyAStudent, Journey, m273p15c, and many other members volunteer on this board in spite of people like you. It is your inflammatory and intimidating debate tactics that drive honest people away, and I will not tolerate it here.
Oh, and you both kill me with this, "he thinks he's right" routine. Do you believe you are wrong?! Come on. Get Real! This forum is very open, but using the "you think your right" technique (as if you don't also think you are right, and would not argue for it) is shallow - at best.
Let's be clear, shall we? Does this forum (meaning me and the majority of its members) exhibit a Christian stance? Yes. However, we tolerate all kinds of religious backgrounds: atheism, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on. We appreciate and respect all kinds of people, as long as they can deal respectfully too. Whenever someone breaks down into name-calling, innuendos, baseless remarks, or insinuatory attacks, it is an indication that they have run out of real ammo; otherwise, they would use it. I don't care what your religious conclusions are, nobody will be tolerated who cannot deal patiently, respectfully, and honorably with others.
JSM17, sledford, will, Jarrod, SimplyAStudent, Journey, m273p15c, and many other members volunteer on this board in spite of people like you. It is your inflammatory and intimidating debate tactics that drive honest people away, and I will not tolerate it here.
Oh, and you both kill me with this, "he thinks he's right" routine. Do you believe you are wrong?! Come on. Get Real! This forum is very open, but using the "you think your right" technique (as if you don't also think you are right, and would not argue for it) is shallow - at best.
Have you read the Rules?