Why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?

[DomainRider]

Doesn't it bother you a bit that Jesus was crucified for living what seems to have been a perfectly honest life?

As I understand it he was seen to be stirring up discontent, upsetting the Jewish authorities who saw him as a threat, and the Romans saw him as a trouble-maker to make an example of. He would have been well aware of the risks. Yes, it's unfortunate when people of good intent suffer & die for their beliefs, but martyrdom is not uncommon throughout history.

I'm also curious why you would question the fact that He even walked on earth.

Well there a some scholars who doubt he was a historical figure; for myself, I'm happy to accept he existed, but I doubt how much of the stories told about him are literally true. The gospels seem to have been written at second hand about 70-100 years after his death by people with a vested interest in the success of the movement he founded, and I've read that many features of his life (and Christianity itself) as described in them matches mythologies of earlier times. It would be not be surprising if people documenting the life of the founder of their movement exaggerated a little, or tacked on a few extras for impact. It's happened with other movements.

 

[DomainRider]

Did you know I intentionally said Christ instead of Christianity, just consider what that sentence would have meant to you if I had have said Christianity.

A grudge with Christianity? I don't see my view of Christianity as having a grudge - I grew up with it, it didn't 'take' (I never got to believe). Looking back, I liked many of the trappings - the robes, the incense, the singing, the ritual of the Latin mass, but not the social elitism, the petty abuse & cruelty with children, the hypocrisy of many who said one thing and did another, and the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude. Once I left school, I simply stopped my involvement and have been happy without it ever since. I don't agree with a lot things the Christian churches do as organisations, or the belief system itself, but I appreciate that they also do good things.

This is why I said Christ, because by attacking Christianity one is actually attacking Christ, even though they might be intending to attack un-Christ-like believers. Let me know your thoughts about that too if you don't mind, cheers.

I'm not intending to attack anyone, just querying how the apparent contradictions that have been raised can be reconciled. So many people here talk in terms of hate and attack and enemies. I think JGG has a good question that deserves an honest answer.

Here in the UK, there's generally a 'live and let live' attitude to religious belief (although extreme minorities of all beliefs seem to be more active of late), and atheism/agnosticism is common, so there's little friction. But in much of the US (as experienced online), there seems to be an accusatory "if you aren't with us you're against us" attitude, especially towards atheists, which I find disturbing.

If a Hindu told you that "when you are confronted with what Ganesh says, you decide to believe a lie instead of the truth", do you think that's reasonable - to be accused of lying and dishonesty because you don't happen to believe someone's faith? It's exactly what you said a couple of posts ago about atheists, substituting Ganesh for God.

 

[oi_antz]

As I understand it he was seen to be stirring up discontent, upsetting the Jewish authorities who saw him as a threat, and the Romans saw him as a trouble-maker to make an example of. He would have been well aware of the risks. Yes, it's unfortunate when people of good intent suffer & die for their beliefs, but martyrdom is not uncommon throughout history.

You seem to believe that the gospel accounts are not accurate, or perhaps you haven't read them in their entirety. What information then do you draw your understanding from?

Well there a some scholars who doubt he was a historical figure; for myself, I'm happy to accept he existed, but I doubt how much of the stories told about him are literally true. The gospels seem to have been written at second hand about 70-100 years after his death by people with a vested interest in the success of the movement he founded, and I've read that many features of his life (and Christianity itself) as described in them matches mythologies of earlier times. It would be not be surprising if people documenting the life of the founder of their movement exaggerated a little, or tacked on a few extras for impact. It's happened with other movements.

Hmmm, I would like to know the "vested interest" these scholars have to cover it up, I guess it would be much the same motive the Jews had in the first place and the Romans soon after. I dare venture only a momentary thought into a world where Jesus isn't real, I do hope one day you will unveil what He truly meant to tell us.

 

[oi_antz]

A grudge with Christianity? I don't see my view of Christianity as having a grudge - I grew up with it, it didn't 'take' (I never got to believe). Looking back, I liked many of the trappings - the robes, the incense, the singing, the ritual of the Latin mass, but not the social elitism, the petty abuse & cruelty with children, the hypocrisy of many who said one thing and did another, and the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude. Once I left school, I simply stopped my involvement and have been happy without it ever since. I don't agree with a lot things the Christian churches do as organisations, or the belief system itself, but I appreciate that they also do good things.

Well if that isn't a grudge, would you mind telling me the word you would rather use instead?

I'm not intending to attack anyone, just querying how the apparent contradictions that have been raised can be reconciled. So many people here talk in terms of hate and attack and enemies. I think JGG has a good question that deserves an honest answer.

What question was that, I think I might have missed it. As for hate and enemies, I think you might be confusing the particular hate that is projected by some people who believe in a false god with the loving rebuke that is projected by those who know and trust Jesus Christ. It's not really proper to blame people for their delusions though, even Jesus pleaded forgiveness for those who crucified Him because they apparently didn't know what they were doing. However, I do admit I am very sensitive to perceived hatred because I do know what it feels like to be the receiver of it, and when I turn my other cheek that person is going to know what is the right thing to do regardless if they choose to do it or not.

Here in the UK, there's generally a 'live and let live' attitude to religious belief (although extreme minorities of all beliefs seem to be more active of late), and atheism/agnosticism is common, so there's little friction. But in much of the US (as experienced online), there seems to be an accusatory "if you aren't with us you're against us" attitude, especially towards atheists, which I find disturbing.

Yes, that is indeed disturbing, I just have to wonder how the discussions wind up at that stage. Doesn't everyone know that religion is taboo, even if you aren't religious? For that reason, such prudence is needed when it is obviously too often neglected.

Matthew 12:30 (New International Version, ©2010)
30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Which to my understanding is basically saying you can either be with Him, or you are on your own. That's pretty much how I understand Jesus' attitude about it and I hope I reflect that attitude myself while also rebuking those who do in fact work against Him.

If a Hindu told you that "when you are confronted with what Ganesh says, you decide to believe a lie instead of the truth", do you think that's reasonable - to be accused of lying and dishonesty because you don't happen to believe someone's faith? It's exactly what you said a couple of posts ago about atheists, substituting Ganesh for God.

Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I know the God in whom I trust, there is no insecurity there and I know better than to go arguing with Hindu's over their deity, it's simply none of my business. Rebutting misconceptions of Jesus is my business though. However, this doesn't reflect the persecution you might feel for being involved with a crowd of those haters you've been offended by. As far as I can tell the hatred of a mis-believer is no match for the faith of a true believer. I really do have a lot to thank the Lord for!

 

[DomainRider]

You seem to believe that the gospel accounts are not accurate, or perhaps you haven't read them in their entirety. What information then do you draw your understanding from?

I'm not a bible scholar, but I used to discuss this with the priests at my school, and I've read and talked and browsed the internet over the years. AIUI the gospels are not entirely consistent between themselves and there are some historical inaccuracies or inconsistencies - which is only to be expected in a mostly verbal, story-telling culture. I've heard that there were some significantly different accounts that were omitted by the Council of Carthage to increase consistency and keep it 'on message'.

Hmmm, I would like to know the "vested interest" these scholars have to cover it up, I guess it would be much the same motive the Jews had in the first place and the Romans soon after.

Not sure where you got 'cover it up' from - my point was that the obvious vested interest was to shine a flattering light on the founder's life & message.

I dare venture only a momentary thought into a world where Jesus isn't real, I do hope one day you will unveil what He truly meant to tell us.

I don't follow - why should I be able to unveil what he meant to say - or is this mocking sarcasm?

 

[DomainRider]

Well if that isn't a grudge, would you mind telling me the word you would rather use instead?

Well to me, 'a grudge' means 'a continuing resentment', and I don't resent my Christian upbringing - it happened, there were good things and bad things, and I got through it. I see good things and bad things in Christianity in general today. Perhaps 'distaste' would be a better epithet.

What question was that, I think I might have missed it.

The OP - 'why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?'

Yes, that is indeed disturbing, I just have to wonder how the discussions wind up at that stage. Doesn't everyone know that religion is taboo, even if you aren't religious?

Taboo? even though we're discussing it here in a civilized way?

Yes, I'm comfortable with that.

OK. I have to say I find that being called a liar because I don't believe someone's creed is annoying. But I guess I can live with the occasional annoyance

 

[oi_antz]

Good morning DomainRider,

I'm not a bible scholar, but I used to discuss this with the priests at my school, and I've read and talked and browsed the internet over the years. AIUI the gospels are not entirely consistent between themselves and there are some historical inaccuracies or inconsistencies - which is only to be expected in a mostly verbal, story-telling culture. I've heard that there were some significantly different accounts that were omitted by the Council of Carthage to increase consistency and keep it 'on message'.

This doesn't explain where you drew your understanding of what happened to Jesus. I agree that the completeness of the Bible is somewhat disputable, however I do also acknowledge who is overseeing this world and that the tolerance of His decisions is surprisingly wise. You might find the information on this page quite interesting: Canon of the Bible, I wouldn't encourage you to believe the message behind this website it seems to be promoting quite intense agression against the concept of faith in God, but from what I can tell this page does seem quite factual despite it's bias, and it is good to hear what other people have to say. We are all grown ups to lesser or greater extents, but surely big enough that we can make up our own mind what to think is good and right.

Not sure where you got 'cover it up' from - my point was that the obvious vested interest was to shine a flattering light on the founder's life & message.

That's how I see it, I just want to know the reason why someone would want to deny that Jesus lived. It requires an incredibly intense deception to think that even happened in face of the obvious evidence of history, despite how many point of views there are represented in the historical accounts. This sentence from the link I just gave you is quite pertinent:

St. Chrysostom says: "The Jews having been at some time careless, and at others profane, they suffered some of the sacred books to be lost through their carelessness, and have burnt and destroyed others."

So we can see that people whether religious or not do seem to have a vested interest in suppressing the information that they find difficult to accept.

I don't follow - why should I be able to unveil what he meant to say - or is this mocking sarcasm?

No it's not sarcasm at all. This refers to the fact that you don't agree with Jesus, and since Jesus is recognized by those who believe it as well as those who don't, that He was blessed with sufficient faith to represent Christ, I do tend to agree with Him because I am honest when I think about what He says. Does what He says sound good to me? Yes, from what I have read I can say it does. Does everyone have the right point of view about Him? In my opinion, not everyone does. Many people downright hate Him, and this is so incredibly unjustified that it can only be chalked up to deception, that is having sought the light with a bad eye. (As Jesus explains in Matthew 6:22,23). So, when you are ready to acknowledge Jesus for who He is instead of whatever you think of Him, then you might conincidentally be ready to hear what He says with a good eye for seeing light. I hope this makes sense, this is basically describing how prejudice can blind us from the truth, and I'm sure you will have observed plenty of that in your time.

Well to me, 'a grudge' means 'a continuing resentment', and I don't resent my Christian upbringing - it happened, there were good things and bad things, and I got through it. I see good things and bad things in Christianity in general today. Perhaps 'distaste' would be a better epithet.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. This is definitely a misunderstanding then. Yes what you are describing with the word "distaste" is exactly what I was meaning to say. Such a distaste for Christianity does in fact cause one to be discriminative toward those who are identified as being Christian, I think that is all I meant to say about it.

The OP - 'why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?'

Ah right, well I'm trying very hard to share my understanding of it, not sure though how easy it will be to convey a mindset using mere words..

Taboo? even though we're discussing it here in a civilized way?

Yes indeed, and from my experience I have found that some people in fact don't mind discussing theology at all. There are however a number of people who are highly prone to being offended, which is the reason I said it is a taboo subject, in the interests of respecting everyone's personal sense of peace and to prevent invoking irrational responses that are caused by frustration or from feeling personally offended, my personal treatment of the topic in public reflects that which you described of the UK: that we just don't go there unless it is invited or unless someone else has brought it up willfully. I understand that not everyone receives this attitude from Christ, that's none of my business to judge I am only meant to do what I feel is best.

OK. I have to say I find that being called a liar because I don't believe someone's creed is annoying. But I guess I can live with the occasional annoyance

Well, I don't know what is best to say about that. I just wonder how you think it might have felt to Jesus to be called demonic when He knew He was blessed by God? Also, I think you're going to have to live with this annoyance because not everone is capable of leaving peacefully on a mere charge that you are annoyed with them.

 

[DomainRider]

...I just want to know the reason why someone would want to deny that Jesus lived. It requires an incredibly intense deception to think that even happened in face of the obvious evidence of history, despite how many point of views there are represented in the historical accounts.

Not everyone believes the historical evidence is so obvious. There are a large number of articles online both pro and anti the idea. The Religious Tolerance site has a good one covering both sides: www[dot]religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

No it's not sarcasm at all.

OK, good.

Such a distaste for Christianity does in fact cause one to be discriminative toward those who are identified as being Christian, I think that is all I meant to say about it.

Not necessarily - as the old saw has it, 'some of my best friends are Christian'. As in any group, individuals vary, and generally most are nice people. It was living on the 'inside' (within the Catholic culture) as I grew up that I found distasteful, and I still find that environment so.

I just wonder how you think it might have felt to Jesus to be called demonic when He knew He was blessed by God?

I don't know - though given his 'turn the other cheek' philosophy, I guess he'd be cool.

 

[JGG]

In case this has not been clear through my involvement here, my view of atheists as a stereotype is not that they are dishonest people so far as their daily activities go (thieving, lying, [insert any dishonest ethic]), but rather that when they are confronted with what God says, they decide to believe a lie instead of the truth.

But, if we assume this is true, that doesn't make us dishonest, that makes us wrong. I think your concepts of God and such are wrong, but that doesn't make you dishonest. Just wrong.

On matters of truth there is only the truth that is right, and anything contradicting it is wrong. So when God tells us something, you really need to be sure about whether you think you know better than He does[...]

But keep in mind that God doesn't tell "us." God told those who "speak for Him," or wrote it down in a book. I often think I know better than people who claim to speak for their God, and still nobody has explained why the Bible should be considered authoratitive. I have the gift of hindsight, why wouldn't I know better than some guys who lived 2000-6000 years ago?

I don't think I know better than "God," but at the same time, I don't think for one second that any Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Scientologist really has even a clue as to what "God" is. You're not upset at us for thinking we know better than God, you're upset because we think we know better than you.

And by the way, agnostics are often atheists! I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostics are people who don't believe they "know," and atheists are those who don't believe in God. I qualify as both.

It's quite clear that the light Jesus speaks of is the good while darkness is the bad. It's also quite relevant to JGG's Kirk vs. Picard observation, that although someone may associate with those who shine light, if they are seeing the light with a bad eye, then they won't be filled with light at all but instead He seems to say that much the opposite comes into effect. This is certainly consistent with the likes of extremist Christian cults and those represented by the statistics JGG mentions.

I don't want you to think that those results are only the result of Extreme Christian "cults." The effect is still present if we eliminate the extremes at both ends of the spectrum.

Now, I can't say that every atheist will straight away argue with everything the Bible says, but rather they are probably inclined to argue with the ideas that a believer gets when he reads the Bible. I'm not sure why this is, and it's perhaps not typical of all atheists but rather the ones who contributed to this particular perception I have of them.

Wait, why shouldn't we argue with everything the Bible says? If the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny then it cannot possibly be valid? Why can't we argue with the ideas a believer has? What is so special about Christians that we have to agree with everything they say without any argument?

So, bottom line of my comment here: I agree that some atheists probably are more honest than some believers, however I do agree that atheists are inherently dishonest about what God says to them, as are those who don't claim to be atheists at all. And I wouldn't like to imply that I am holier than anyone

But you just did. You just said that all atheists are inherently dishonest, but that you are not. That makes you hollier than us.

Again, I will say: If I believed in God because I feared hell or wanted heaven, or because the religious puting pressure on us to convert, or to fit in, or for any other reason than I actually believed...that would be dishonest. And clearly, I can't just make myself believe. If your God really wants me to believe, then He can do so, an infinite number of different ways. But I'm not going to pay lip service, because that is dishonest. Yet for some reason this is all Christians really want or expect from me, and they will label me as dishonest if I don't lie to them.

Hi JGG, I'm certainly not afraid to hear what you have to say, I'd actually appreciate if you would share your thoughts about why those who subscribe to the religion don't all seem to have such an interest in learning it. You'll see in my previous post I quoted Matthew 6:23, I think that might be relevant to this topic, and I really can't promote my understanding above that which Jesus shows us. So, would you care to share your ideas about this?

I really don't think that's such a good idea.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know - though given his 'turn the other cheek' philosophy, I guess he'd be cool.

I'm not sure what gives you this impression, He is quite sharp with His representation of God's truth. If you read the last half of John 8 you'll see that in fact He condemns those beliefs as being unforgivable.

Edit: Hey, sorry about this I just reviewed this post and found that I had quoted the wrong verse. The verse I was referring to is Matthew 12:22-37, where Jesus says that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Do look at John 8 though, it doesn't hurt to gather information. That chapter is actually quite relevant to your previous post about the reason why the Jews wanted to kill Him.

 

[oi_antz]

But, if we assume this is true, that doesn't make us dishonest, that makes us wrong. I think your concepts of God and such are wrong, but that doesn't make you dishonest. Just wrong.

Well the authoritative perspective doesn't depend on what you or I think, so if you say I am wrong yet what the Holy Spirit tells me is that I am right to believe this and that, then I think it is actually you who is wrong. So, I just don't believe you have sufficient authority to tell me I'm wrong to believe what I believe, your accusation is water off a duck's back.

But keep in mind that God doesn't tell "us." God told those who "speak for Him," or wrote it down in a book. I often think I know better than people who claim to speak for their God, and still nobody has explained why the Bible should be considered authoratitive. I have the gift of hindsight, why wouldn't I know better than some guys who lived 2000-6000 years ago?

Well, it seems quite clear to me that you can't have any authority on the matters of truth about God, because you openly declare that you don't even believe that God is real, let alone trust that what He has done is true. So in my opinion, that makes those who personally know God and have personally witnessed His miracles to be more of an authority than anyone who for whatever reason is bent on denying it.

I don't think I know better than "God," but at the same time, I don't think for one second that any Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Scientologist really has even a clue as to what "God" is. You're not upset at us for thinking we know better than God, you're upset because we think we know better than you.

The first part is almost true, none of us could possibly comprehend God as long as we rely on the brain to conceptualize things, but the thing you don't seem to accept is that these believers have chosen to trust what their deity has told them. As for the second part, you are actually incorrect, I don't feel upset at you or at atheists as a whole. When an atheist lures an innocent victim into disbelieving what God tells them, that makes me upset, but that's not really a problem I that should bother me anyway. I think that when a person comes to recognize God for who He is, then at that time the nature of their heart will clearly show their attitude toward Him, and that could even happen at the great white throne for all I know. This is why I don't like to propose any of my own concepts of God's justice because it's well beyond the scope of my role. As far as I am concerned, my role on this planet is to testify of what I have witnessed and to share with others the understanding that I have received from investigating the matter of truth about God under the influence of His Holy Spirit. I can't remember prophesying and I don't usually propose to represent the Holy Spirit, but rather to share my understandings according to how I see fit.

And by the way, agnostics are often atheists! I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostics are people who don't believe they "know," and atheists are those who don't believe in God. I qualify as both.

Splitting hairs? So you can claim either category depending how you feel at the time, what's your point?

I don't want you to think that those results are only the result of Extreme Christian "cults." The effect is still present if we eliminate the extremes at both ends of the spectrum.

Hmmm, I still think this statistical approach to smother a blanket conclusion over everyone is fundamentally wrong. I don't know why you think it is fair to eliminate the good extreme, I mean that extreme is exactly what Christ promotes.

Wait, why shouldn't we argue with everything the Bible says? If the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny then it cannot possibly be valid? Why can't we argue with the ideas a believer has? What is so special about Christians that we have to agree with everything they say without any argument?

No I don't believe it is right to discard everything based upon something you don't like. I suspect that might just be an emotional response.

But you just did. You just said that all atheists are inherently dishonest, but that you are not. That makes you hollier than us.

If that is how you understand holiness then I think you misunderstand what holiness is. Being honest is not necessarily sufficient to make a person holy, but I've seen that idea thrown at me before. When I first confessed my belief to a close friend who is of new-age spiritualist belief, I said "I'm not holy all of a sudden" (because I'd only made a split-second decision the day before to believe that Jesus is Christ, that's all), and he said "Oh, you're holy alright". So I think that the word holiness might be a bit of a misnomer for what you are referring to. As far as I understand it, it means to be perfectly good and distinctively perfect in effect showing everyone else to be corrupted, both things of which I definitely am not.

Again, I will say: If I believed in God because I feared hell or wanted heaven, or because the religious puting pressure on us to convert, or to fit in, or for any other reason than I actually believed...that would be dishonest. And clearly, I can't just make myself believe. If your God really wants me to believe, then He can do so, an infinite number of different ways. But I'm not going to pay lip service, because that is dishonest. Yet for some reason this is all Christians really want or expect from me, and they will label me as dishonest if I don't lie to them.

Yes, all except the last sentence is definitely true. Personally, I certainly would prefer that you remain honest enough to confess your atheism than to masquerade as Christian and lead others into false belief under the guise that they are trusting someone genuine. There's plenty who already do that, and as we can see in your statistics this doesn't contribute well to Christ's cause.

The reason why someone might come to believe in Christ has a direct impact on the nature of that person's faith. Look: those who fear hell will impose their idealism on others. Those who crave heaven will fall into the clutches of greed. Those who want free soup or to join a club will be fickle and lack interest. Those who really want to know the truth will be determined to overcome all of those temptations and really get to know what God wants them to know.

As for your charge that your faith is entirely up to God, I'm not sure you have acknowledged the extent of God's contribution already and the extent of your own personal responsibility, and I'm not sure how you might come round to doing so. But I think if you are to honestly seek out the truth about who Jesus is, who His father is, and why He came into this world, you might just have sufficient tenacity to overcome that which opposes you.

I really don't think that's such a good idea.

Ok, I'll trust your judgment for now, but I'd like to pick your brains if you do manage to find a nice way to say it.

 

[DomainRider]

I'm not sure what gives you this impression, He is quite sharp with His representation of God's truth... in fact He condemns those beliefs as being unforgivable.

Now that's what I call a grudge...

 

[oi_antz]

Now that's what I call a grudge...

Mmm, for sure. Well I don't know if you'd hold it against Him when you get to see His point of view, I guess you'll know for yourself when the time comes.

Hey, I just found one of those forums that you might have been talking about, they are very strict "KJV only" believers, very harsh on anyone who comes across as being incompatible with their beliefs, and I was horrified by their attitude toward those who they chose to discriminate against. In fact their attitude is so bad that even I am afraid to speak to them for fear of discrimination, their words are downright nasty. I can certainly see now the type of hatred you guys have faced out there, and I do hope that my posts don't come across like that. I hope you realize that I put a lot of effort into a graceful presentation of my understanding of truth, because after all I wouldn't like someone to hold a grudge against God on account of the way I presented His message to them. I tend to think it is possible to be strong while being gentle, and I think Jesus does that quite well, much better in fact than I ever could and much better than those people who I'm referring to manage to do it. Well, anyway I'd never deny your right to argue with or ignore those types of people, but I would encourage you and anyone else I happen to speak to, not to treat Jesus with the same regard these people seem to be accruing on His behalf. Frankly I'm so disgusted by finding that website that I'm going to just go to bed now and read the Bible and pray for a while, at least I know I can count on Him to speak as a gentleman

 

[DomainRider]

Hey, I just found one of those forums that you might have been talking about, they are very strict "KJV only" believers, very harsh on anyone who comes across as being incompatible with their beliefs, and I was horrified by their attitude toward those who they chose to discriminate against.

Yes, it's quite a shock when you encounter that kind of attitude. I don't know what they hope to achieve by it.

I tend to think it is possible to be strong while being gentle

Absolutely. I think it's certainly the best way to get someone to think seriously and sympathetically about what you say.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know what they hope to achieve by it.

Well it certainly seems that they aren't focusing on achieving that which Jesus' disciples have been recruited to do, which is to give a cup of water to the little ones and to feed His sheep. Instead they promote elitism and talk dirty about anyone they don't like.

I saw them literally drive someone to frustration because this person had obviously only recently realized how profoundly simple the Christian faith is, and these people basically took offense to this person's boastful attitude. They went on to bully this person and then banned them from their forum and stuck a big sign on the header of each of their posts saying how "loony" they are, complete with a loony icon! Now that is no way to welcome someone into Christ's family and assist them to nurture their pursuit of His love. That approach will certainly end up driving otherwise well-meaning people into the hands of the enemy or to become enemies of Christianity. So, JGG, I can only extend to you now my greatest apologies if what I have said about atheists being dishonest about what God tells them has given you the impression that I might support these Christians, because to me it is clear that these people are refusing to hear something that God has told them. This is evidence in my opinion of what Jesus says in John 15:1-5, and backed up by the fruits of the spirit in Galations 5:19-23.

Boy, this has been an extremely disappointing discovery for me, I've never encountered anything like it before. I've seen reports of the "God hates you" rallies, but I haven't actually seen this sort of contentiousness in action. How bizarre, nothing like a glimpse of someone else's reality to remind one of how diverse the world is!

 

[MattRose]

Hey, I just found one of those forums that you might have been talking about, they are very strict "KJV only" believers, very harsh on anyone who comes across as being incompatible with their beliefs, and I was horrified by their attitude toward those who they chose to discriminate against.

Care to share where these people lurk? I've been kicked outta better forums than their's I'll bet.

 

[oi_antz]

Care to share where these people lurk? I've been kicked outta better forums than their's I'll bet.

In the interests of not starting a war of websites, I'll have to PM you about that, but they won't tolerate any "riff-raff", you'll definitely get kicked fast. Also, not sure if you really did mean to choose that word specifically, but why do you say "better", suggesting their website is "good"?

Edit: on second thoughts, it is probably not even possible to keep the site a secret, so I'll just have to refuse to disclose it to prevent causing a potential hate war on account of my opinion. Do understand though that you'd not be welcomed there and your input wouldn't have made a dent on their conscience, so really you're not missing anything

 

[JGG]

Well the authoritative perspective doesn't depend on what you or I think, so if you say I am wrong yet what the Holy Spirit tells me is that I am right to believe this and that, then I think it is actually you who is wrong. So, I just don't believe you have sufficient authority to tell me I'm wrong to believe what I believe, your accusation is water off a duck's back.

So to confirm, I'm a liar because the Holy Spirit told you so? Again, why should I trust that the Bible is an authority on anything?

Well, it seems quite clear to me that you can't have any authority on the matters of truth about God, because you openly declare that you don't even believe that God is real, let alone trust that what He has done is true. So in my opinion, that makes those who personally know God and have personally witnessed His miracles to be more of an authority than anyone who for whatever reason is bent on denying it.

Okay, so when Fred Phelps says that God Hates everyone, how can you possibly say he's wrong? Are you going to tell us that you are more of an authority on God than he? Where do you lie in the hieraracy of God authority?

The first part is almost true, none of us could possibly comprehend God as long as we rely on the brain to conceptualize things, but the thing you don't seem to accept is that these believers have chosen to trust what their deity has told them. As for the second part, you are actually incorrect, I don't feel upset at you or at atheists as a whole.

Clearly you are. You think we're all liars for starters, and you're about to indirectly compare us to child-molestors.

When an atheist lures an innocent victim into disbelieving what God tells them, that makes me upset, but that's not really a problem I that should bother me anyway.

So atheists are what, predators? Why do you believe that only Christians should be allowed to speak about what they believe, or for that matter, do not believe?

Splitting hairs? So you can claim either category depending how you feel at the time, what's your point?

No. I'm always both at the same time, they're not mutually exclusive. I happen to be an atheist precisely because I'm agnostic.

Hmmm, I still think this statistical approach to smother a blanket conclusion over everyone is fundamentally wrong.

How so? If they benefitted your argument, do you think you would still find them fundamentally wrong? Can you show that my statistics are wrong, or misleading?

I don't know why you think it is fair to eliminate the good extreme, I mean that extreme is exactly what Christ promotes.

Well, we do it so that we can also eliminate the negative extreme, and potentially take what we call outliers out of the study. If we only eliminated one extreme, the findings would be useless. If the result is because of outliers then it's not particularly interesting. Do you think it's also unfair to elminate the negative extreme?

No I don't believe it is right to discard everything based upon something you don't like. I suspect that might just be an emotional response.

You have just argued that we cannot use statistics to look at the behaviour of Christians because the results were not positive. You then said that it was unfair to eliminate extreme positive results, (even if we also eliminate the equivelant negative results) because its "unfair" to do so.

If you can demonstrate that my statistics are wrong, then do so. But let's be clear, you have discarded my statistical evidence because they're "unfair" (even though they are accurate), I assume because you don't like the results. I don't think its a great idea to accuse me of discarding something, simply because I don't like it.

So far, even you have not been able to explain why I should believe the Bible to be true and authoratitve. It's not that I'm having an emotional response to it, it's probably that I'm not having an emotional response to it. Most of us are looking for more of an explanation than "Trust me."

If the Bible, and Christianity cannot handle skepticism, and some challenging questions, then that's a serious problem to its validity. If I can't justify believing in something, why shouldn't I discard it?

If that is how you understand holiness then I think you misunderstand what holiness is. Being honest is not necessarily sufficient to make a person holy, but I've seen that idea thrown at me before. When I first confessed my belief to a close friend who is of new-age spiritualist belief, I said "I'm not holy all of a sudden" (because I'd only made a split-second decision the day before to believe that Jesus is Christ, that's all), and he said "Oh, you're holy alright". So I think that the word holiness might be a bit of a misnomer for what you are referring to. As far as I understand it, it means to be perfectly good and distinctively perfect in effect showing everyone else to be corrupted, both things of which I definitely am not.

Yeah, I meant holier-than-thou like your friend did. In the modern, common parlance it means "better-than-you."

Yes, all except the last sentence is definitely true. Personally, I certainly would prefer that you remain honest enough to confess your atheism than to masquerade as Christian and lead others into false belief under the guise that they are trusting someone genuine. There's plenty who already do that, and as we can see in your statistics this doesn't contribute well to Christ's cause.

Would it be fair to say then that "Christians" are less honest than atheists?

The reason why someone might come to believe in Christ has a direct impact on the nature of that person's faith. Look: those who fear hell will impose their idealism on others. Those who crave heaven will fall into the clutches of greed. Those who want free soup or to join a club will be fickle and lack interest. Those who really want to know the truth will be determined to overcome all of those temptations and really get to know what God wants them to know.

Yet, if I were to ask why I should believe in God, the most common answer tends to be "you don't want to go to hell."

As for your charge that your faith is entirely up to God, I'm not sure you have acknowledged the extent of God's contribution already and the extent of your own personal responsibility, and I'm not sure how you might come round to doing so.

I did my bit. I looked for God for years. Nothing.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Still hacking away at it JCG?

 

[oi_antz]

Oh boy, look at your attitude! You have certainly been hurt, I am sorry about that.

So to confirm, I'm a liar because the Holy Spirit told you so? Again, why should I trust that the Bible is an authority on anything?

The Holy Spirit didn't tell me that you're a liar, I just happen to recognize when someone is not listening to the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible. That is because there is some resistance to what God says when they read the Bible, often this results in a rejection or misinterpretation of the verse. This is why His spirit is called "holy", because there is none other like it, and all the others are liars. The only reason you should trust the Bible, is if you want to trust the God who gave His Holy Spirit to Jesus. If you want to believe someone other than Him, then you don't have any reason to trust the Bible.

Okay, so when Fred Phelps says that God Hates everyone, how can you possibly say he's wrong? Are you going to tell us that you are more of an authority on God than he? Where do you lie in the hieraracy of God authority?

Because not everyone agree's with him, I don't agree with him, and the Bible doesn't even agree with him: John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

This says very clearly that God loves the world, and He loved the world before He gave His son, therefore He loves everyone even if they don't believe in Jesus. Fred Phelps is wrong, God does not hate you.

As for hierarchy of authority, I consider myself second to Jesus in my own faith, but I believe every true Christian will also consider themselves second to Jesus in their own faith. This is why I say you should believe Jesus, believe the Bible and don't just trust someone else on blind faith. We can ask others for their understanding, but we will always get a variety of ideas and ultimately we make our own decision about what it is that Jesus tells us is right, and in doing so we find the light together. Those who seek the light with a bad eye will find darkness, but those who seek the light with a good eye will find light. We make our own choice about that and if you are wise you will trust Jesus who tells you what is holy and right, instead of your fellow man who tells you how to justify your sin.

Clearly you are. You think we're all liars for starters, and you're about to indirectly compare us to child-molestors.

Atheists = child molestors? I don't follow.. can you fill me in what led you to that thought?

So atheists are what, predators? Why do you believe that only Christians should be allowed to speak about what they believe, or for that matter, do not believe?

Yes, when it comes to whether someone loves Jesus or hates Jesus, then yes you should keep your nose out of the business that doesn't belong to you. It is someone's eternal life you are messing with, but you just don't realize that because you refuse to accept what God has told you about it. That is why I get upset, how selfish one must have to be to put their own needs above that of another.

No. I'm always both at the same time, they're not mutually exclusive. I happen to be an atheist precisely because I'm agnostic.

I don't understand this, you say that atheists believe God doesn't exist, but agnostics believe they don't know? So how can someone who believes they don't know, claim that they do know that He doesn't exist? It doesn't make any logical sense to me, can you please explain it in more detail.

How so? If they benefitted your argument, do you think you would still find them fundamentally wrong? Can you show that my statistics are wrong, or misleading?

Yes I can, but you won't believe it because you're not honest enough to admit that someone calling themselves Christian doesn't qualify them to be Christian. It is Jesus who makes that decision. It is not your decision, it is not my decision, and your chart has no idea how to distinguish by spirit so you really are following a blind leader.

Well, we do it so that we can also eliminate the negative extreme, and potentially take what we call outliers out of the study. If we only eliminated one extreme, the findings would be useless. If the result is because of outliers then it's not particularly interesting. Do you think it's also unfair to elminate the negative extreme?

Well yes in fact I do, because this study is not a measure of the effect of religion on society, but the effect of evil vs good. And you don't seem to accept what Jesus told you about why this happens, yet you seem to think that anyone who stands up and calls themselves Christian is not lying about it. Why is that?

You have just argued that we cannot use statistics to look at the behaviour of Christians because the results were not positive. You then said that it was unfair to eliminate extreme positive results, (even if we also eliminate the equivelant negative results) because its "unfair" to do so.

If you can demonstrate that my statistics are wrong, then do so. But let's be clear, you have discarded my statistical evidence because they're "unfair" (even though they are accurate), I assume because you don't like the results. I don't think its a great idea to accuse me of discarding something, simply because I don't like it.

Ok, let me demonstrate to you what is not the behavior of a true Christian: this is a response given to an atheist who made just three posts and demonstrated polite respect not wanting to cause any trouble but simply to be heard. This was the response given by someone who calls themselves Christian:

Why do you think we care about your opinion? you are going to burn in hell

Does this seem like the action of someone who honestly believes what God says when they read the Bible, or does it sound like the type of person who refuses to hear what God says when He says something like this:

Romans 12
14 Bless those who persecute you. Don’t curse them; pray that God will bless them. 15 Be happy with those who are happy, and weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with each other. Don’t be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don’t think you know it all! 17 Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honorable. 18 Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.

So far, even you have not been able to explain why I should believe the Bible to be true and authoratitve. It's not that I'm having an emotional response to it, it's probably that I'm not having an emotional response to it. Most of us are looking for more of an explanation than "Trust me."

I'm not expecting you to trust me, I'm telling you that if you want peace with God, you're going to have to trust Him. I am literally incapable of helping you if you refuse to hear what I say, you should already have know this, why do you expect that I will be able to break through the hardness of your heart if you are not prepared to let it happen? Quite clearly, your approach in this thread has been to battle my will, but we're both strong people, so what do you think we going to be able to achieve here?

If the Bible, and Christianity cannot handle skepticism, and some challenging questions, then that's a serious problem to its validity. If I can't justify believing in something, why shouldn't I discard it?

I don't know if you're in a stable frame of mind when you say that, this comment seems to presume that God doesn't exist and that whatever He has said is not going to happen. I can't help but feel a bit concerned, you do seem to be getting increasingly frustrated.

Yeah, I meant holier-than-thou like your friend did. In the modern, common parlance it means "better-than-you."

Ah ok, no problem. I meant holy as in perfect compared to sinful. Well I guess from your perspective you might see it like that if there is something you envy, I however wouldn't like to give the impression that my own struggle with sin is any easier than someone else's because it sure doesn't seem that way to me.

Would it be fair to say then that "Christians" are less honest than atheists?

Well, it does depend how you define a Christian. If you are talking about Jesus' chosen ones, I would have to say probably not. If you are talking about those who Jesus has not accepted but like to put up that front, then yes it is obvious that these people are telling a greater lie about their faith than an atheist.

Yet, if I were to ask why I should believe in God, the most common answer tends to be "you don't want to go to hell."

Well, we do have to accept the reality of the situation, but from what I've seen in your attitude you've got no fear of hell so it's clearly not a very good motive is it? Perhaps it's not intended to even be a motive, have you ever considered that?

I did my bit. I looked for God for years. Nothing.

So that's it then, you dug around for a while and didn't see any gold, I suppose it's just not there then eh? Do you think Jesus gave you a false map or do you think it is possible you might have misread it?