An Argument for the Existence of the Christian God

[Gadarene]

Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

You do realise that going around calling atheists fools, corrupt and liars when it's a simple fact of reality (I'm sure you've heard of it) that many of them simply are not any of the above is hardly going to endear them to your little cult, right?

 

[trientje]

You do realise that going around calling atheists fools, corrupt and liars when it's a simple fact of reality (I'm sure you've heard of it) that many of them simply are not any of the above is hardly going to endear them to your little cult, right?

And you do realize that calling unbelievers fools are not his words but God's words?

 

[Gadarene]

And you do realize that calling unbelievers fools are not his words but God's words?

A repeated and incorrect insult is still an incorrect insult. No matter what the source.

And technically they're the words of David and Paul, respectively.

Like I said, that's not really the technique that is going to win people over because it simply is not true for all unbelievers.

And if it gets repeated again, I am going to treat it as flaming.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

You do realise that going around calling atheists fools, corrupt and liars when it's a simple fact of reality (I'm sure you've heard of it) that many of them simply are not any of the above is hardly going to endear them to your little cult, right?

You do realise that I simply qouted the Word of God which is so very, very True, even though you might not agree. If you have a problem with God's Word as being less than truthful then take it up with God.

But I can assure you that you will be on the losing end of that debate.

 

[mathetes123]

A repeated and incorrect insult is still an incorrect insult.

Like I said, that's not really the technique that is going to win people over because it simply is not true for all unbelievers.

And if it gets repeated again, I am going to treat it as flaming.

I would have to question your motives when you pull your name from the following verses:

Demons Driven Out by the Master
28 When He had come to the other side, to the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him as they came out of the tombs. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 Suddenly they shouted, "What do You have to do with us, , Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" 30 Now a long way off from them, a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 "If You drive us out," the demons begged Him, "send us into the herd of pigs." 32 "Go!" He told them. So when they had come out, they entered the pigs. And suddenly the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water. 33 Then the men who tended them fled. They went into the city and reported everything -- especially what had happened to those who were demon-possessed. 34 At that, the whole town went out to meet Jesus. When they saw Him, they begged Him to leave their region.

Is it your intent to flame by choosing this name?

 

[Gadarene]

I would have to question your motives when you pull your name from the following verses:

Demons Driven Out by the Master
28 When He had come to the other side, to the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him as they came out of the tombs. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 Suddenly they shouted, "What do You have to do with us, , Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" 30 Now a long way off from them, a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 "If You drive us out," the demons begged Him, "send us into the herd of pigs." 32 "Go!" He told them. So when they had come out, they entered the pigs. And suddenly the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water. 33 Then the men who tended them fled. They went into the city and reported everything -- especially what had happened to those who were demon-possessed. 34 At that, the whole town went out to meet Jesus. When they saw Him, they begged Him to leave their region.

Is it your intent to flame by choosing this name?

No, because it is a name, not directed at someone.

Oh, and btw, even if it were flaming, that doesn't change the fact that calling a segment of the board's population fools, corrupt and liars is still flaming.

 

[Gadarene]

You do realise that I simply qouted the Word of God which is so very, very True, even though you might not agree. If you have a problem with God's Word as being less than truthful then take it up with God.

Ah, can't even own your own choice of verses.

Typical Christian cowardice. Just obeying orders.

But I can assure you that you will be on the losing end of that debate.

I know, I know - might makes right.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

And if it gets repeated again, I am going to treat it as flaming.

Does the Word of God offend you?

Matthew 11:6
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Maybe if your offended in Him you should not be on a Christian web site?

 

[mathetes123]

So God gave us senses, but he doesn't want us to use them?

We are not proclaiming our wisdom above the wisdom of God, we are claiming that God's wisdom doesn't exist, nor does he exist.

Just because God exists doesn't mean we can't apply our rules of morality to him. Judging him is entirely possible.

Your rules of morality have no authority if there is no God. They are no more than personal opinion and no more valid than the next guy's. With no God, you have no basis for saying such words as ought, good, or bad, as their meaning would be purely subjective.

 

[Noxot]

You do realise that I simply qouted the Word of God which is so very, very True, even though you might not agree. If you have a problem with God's Word as being less than truthful then take it up with God.

But I can assure you that you will be on the losing end of that debate.

who can resist God? i will until he tricks me again. why do you desire to know God? hes not worth it.

 

[mathetes123]

No, because it is a name, not directed at someone.

Oh, and btw, even if it were flaming, that doesn't change the fact that calling a segment of the board's population fools, corrupt and liars is still flaming.

If you consider God's word quoted on a Christian website as inflammatory, then perhaps you should not be on a Christian website with the sole purpose of inflaming Christians.

 

[Gadarene]

Does the Word of God offend you?

Where the blatant falsehoods of it are repeated uncritically by Christians who try and avoid their responsibility when they repeat it, yes.

Maybe if your offended in Him you should not be on a Christian web site?

Consider it streamlining the Great Commission - which you're failing.

 

[Gadarene]

If you consider God's word quoted on a Christian website as inflammatory, then perhaps you should not be on a Christian website with the sole purpose of inflaming Christians.

It doesn't matter what the source is - it's still a flame.

If you want to be hypocritical about it, go right ahead.

 

[trientje]

A repeated and incorrect insult is still an incorrect insult. No matter what the source.

And technically they're the words of David and Paul, respectively.

Like I said, that's not really the technique that is going to win people over because it simply is not true for all unbelievers.

And if it gets repeated again, I am going to treat it as flaming.

A repeated and incorrect insult is still an incorrect insult. No matter what the source.

I don't understand. If you don't believe in God then you do not believe the bible has any credence. So why are you insulted? He was quoting a verse from the bible which you do not believe in. that verse does not say that all atheists are immoral people. Many atheists live relatively moral lives and I say "relatively" because morality is relative to an atheist. Now, in Psalm14:1 and psalm 53:1 the word for fool in Hebrew is nabal, which refers more to a "moral fool". So to read it correctly it means "immoral people do not believe in God". Immoral because they have rejected God's morals and are living according to their own desires and rules. And yes, these were words from David and Paul but we believe that the bible is inspired by God and so therefore they are God's words. I know that doesn't mean anything to you but I thought I would explain that.

 

[mathetes123]

It doesn't matter what the source is - it's still a flame.

If you want to be hypocritical about it, go right ahead.

Hypocritical is an atheist going on a Christian website with the sole purpose of inflaming Christians and then accusing Christians of doing the very thing they are doing when they quote the word of God. God's word is going to be offensive to those who are perishing. I for one am not going to bow down to political correctness and water down the offense of the gospel for the sake of removing the offense as is becoming increasingly common among our more liberal compromised churches.

 

[Gadarene]

Hypocritical is an atheist going on a Christian website with the sole purpose of inflaming Christians

Which you have not established, although surely the mere presence of atheists on a Christian website would be enough for you to conclude that.

and then accusing Christians of doing the very thing they are doing when they quote the word of God.

And it still doesn't matter what the source is or how true you think it is, it simply isn't true, and it is still flaming.

God's word is going to be offensive to those who are perishing.

God's word is going to be offensive when inherently incorrect and misapplied, which it was here.

I for one am not going to bow down to political correctness and water down the offense of the gospel for the sake of removing the offense as is becoming increasingly common among our more liberal compromised churches.

So you're not going to correct your own mistakes.

Again, a fairly typical Christian response, sadly.

 

[Noxot]

Hypocritical is an atheist going on a Christian website with the sole purpose of inflaming Christians and then accusing Christians of doing the very thing they are doing when they quote the word of God. God's word is going to be offensive to those who are perishing. I for one am not going to bow down to political correctness and water down the offense of the gospel for the sake of removing the offense as is becoming increasingly common among our more liberal compromised churches.

you have NO idea how much you bow down to things political though. you're just another cog in the now present common belief system of the world that satan has set up. you are on the "right" and that just shows how much in the world you really are. you are so very human and so not like angels of heaven!

 

[trientje]

Which you have not established, although surely the mere presence of atheists on a Christian website would be enough for you to conclude that.



And it still doesn't matter what the source is or how true you think it is, it simply isn't true, and it is still flaming.



God's word is going to be offensive when inherently incorrect and misapplied, which it was here.



So you're not going to correct your own mistakes.

Again, a fairly typical Christian response, sadly.

So you're not going to correct your own mistakes.

Again, a fairly typical Christian response, sadly.

[/QUOTE]

What mistake Sir? Where did this person make a mistake? Did he misquote the bible? Explain, what mistake?

 

[Gadarene]

I don't understand. If you don't believe in God then you do not believe the bible has any credence. So why are you insulted? He was quoting a verse from the bible which you do not believe in.

Sure it has no credence! That's precisely why it's insulting!

When you make a broad statement like that, it's bad enough - when you do so on the basis of nothing at all, it's even worse.

that verse does not say that all atheists are immoral people.

Yes, it does. Or at the very least, I've come across who take it to mean that.

Many atheists live relatively moral lives and I say "relatively" because morality is relative to an atheist.

*sigh* Not necessarily.

Now, in Psalm14:1 and psalm 53:1 the word for fool in Hebrew is nabal, which refers more to a "moral fool". So to read it correctly it means "immoral people do not believe in God".

Moral fool or immoral fool?

Immoral because they have rejected God's morals and are living according to their own desires and rules.

Which describes most atheists. I should caveat that that doesn't mean we're all out inhaling cocaine and banging everything that moves, which is where Christian prejudice usually goes first. But the fact remains that we do not recognise God as a source of morality (kinda hard to when there's no reason to think he exists) and that leaves human-established moral systems as the only viable alternative.

So even by your description, yes, this verse is referring to all atheists.

And yes, these were words from David and Paul but we believe that the bible is inspired by God and so therefore they are God's words. I know that doesn't mean anything to you but I thought I would explain that.

And I was explaining to you what it comes across as to us.

 

[Gadarene]

What mistake Sir? Where did this person make a mistake? Did he misquote the bible? Explain, what mistake?

If you want people to actually listen to you, calling them fools, corrupt and liars (especially when many of them are none of the above) is not a good approach.

Keep up.