Can Atheists win the bible?

[GodsGrace101]

As I previously stated, it depends on how you go about explaining ID. If by ID you mean the theory that all life was created/engineered by God; then yes, I agree with that. But when you go any further than that, like claiming creationism(as the two are often used as a pair), then ID starts to lose credibility.

ID is a term that scientists use to denote that a superior being created time and the universe...it does not say that the being is the God we know. It COULD be Him too, but is not specified.

I don't know what you mean by creatioism, but it just means that everything was created by God.

Since ID does NOT state who or what the being is....God could also be included.

Also, whether or not I believe in scientific or even pseudo-scientific theories does not qualify nor disqualify me from being a believer. Nice ad hominem.

Did I say something to this effect?
Of course what you believe about science does not disqualify you.

Dunno why you're pulling this, since I never questioned the age of the universe and already stated we don't know how the universe was created.

Maybe YOU don't know when the universe was created, but it's an accepted fact that it came into being 13.8 billion years ago. What am I "pulling" by stating a fact?

A good Christian should use their testimony, God's word, and above ALL else their KINDNESS and 'light' when talking to ANYONE; Atheist or not. The Christians obsessed with 'winning' secular/worldy debates only make it seem like we're out to get everyone because we're losing ground.

Did God go 'hey guys, I'm still here!' to the nonbelievers whenever the Apostles were martyred for their faith? No. If you feel the need to appease all of the skeptics with 'scientific proof of God' and don't believe His word and personal relationships with us--even just the effect they have on us as people--are enough, then I don't know what to tell you.

Well, then, perhaps you shouldn't tell me anything and our conversation should really end right here since you're beginning to discuss what I SAY instead of the topic at hand.

Nice straw man you have there. Last time I checked, we were talking about proof of God; not proof of the resurrection. From an Atheistic standpoint, even if the resurrection happened; who's to say what supernatural power caused it? This is my whole point of not bothering with 'evidence'. It's pointless--even if God presented himself on a silver platter, as far as I know there's no way to study a supernatural force.

Huh?
YOU said Christianity cannot be proven...
I said the resurrection can but that I don't speak about it because atheists don't believe it anyway. HOW is that a strawman???

When I speak of 'evidence', I don't mean that 'there is no evidence, so God isn't real'. I mean there will be no evidence by the WORLD's standards. For pity's sake, the evidence is only one piece of the puzzle. Does history cease to exist the moment we don't have any 'evidence' of it happening? All of the undocumented lives and events we haven't dug up yet; did they simply not happen because we have no physical proof of it at this moment?

I think you give Atheists a little more credit than is due. Being an Atheist doesn't suddenly make you educated or scientifically inclined.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't passively calling me a nonbeliever. Because if you were, that would be absolutely disgusting behavior from someone talking on behalf of God.


And whenever an Atheist pulls a 'the onus is on the one making the claim', it is on YOU to be smart enough to not fall into the trap. Seriously, you people think that you can just waltz in on their territory of knowledge and convert them with your 'woke Christian science'? No--you might as well be a ten-man-army approaching a fully armed stronghold.

I agree with you...
I'm a really dumb person and will no longer be posting to you.

Darwin was a theist, in the same manner that Einstein was a theist--both either believed or acknowledged the possibility of a nonpersonal higher power. Darwin wasn't even that big of an atheist.

Darwinism is also NOT a religion by any stretch. The fact that you seem to talk so much about topics you know so little about only proves how petty and atheist-obsessed the apologetics circle is becoming. It's not bad enough that we have a good chunk of apologetics who either don't understand the material they speak about(Frank turek, ken ham)but they also downright lie about it to get ahead(such as the example @Larnievc gave).

Yeah, the atheists are totally going to respect the God who's people don't trust Him enough to reveal Himself and have to cover their own rear ends with made-up 'facts' just so they don't have to feel the sting of being persecuted and called illogical



Maybe if you stopped caring so much about what the nonbelievers think, you could better let the Holy Spirit speak to people through YOU with your actions and kindness. Constantly debating will only have people thinking you're obnoxious and disingenuous(coming from someone who's still trying to get over that habit).

I also love the irony of your stance primarily being about how Atheists will perceive the bible as illogical, lest we do something to counter the evil 'darwinist' religion when in post #55 you just brought up the verse...

"1 Corinthians 2:14
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

Just sayin' bud, sounds like you're beating a dead horse if the atheists literally can't understand scripture.

Yeah.
Beating a dead horse is rough.
So......

 

[GodsGrace101]

Hi Larnie, nice to meet you.
In my opinion, God did not change. Situations did. God reacted differently in different situations. That's all.
Thomas

Your reply would require a long explanation...
which cannot be done.

Why would God command that even children be killed ...
1 Samuel 15:3

And then in the N.T. Jesus says to let the children come to Him?
Matthew 19:14

God does not change because a situation changes.
If God is immutable, then He will always have the same solution to any problem.

There must be another explanation.
Or the O.T. is not understandable.

 

[thomas_t]

Hi GodsGrace, nice to meet you.
(Is it allowed to have a discussion between Christians here in this section? But I saw you debating with seombody from the Christian side and it ended well...)
No, God does not change Hebrews 13:8.

Why would God command that even children be killed ...
1 Samuel 15:3

And then in the N.T. Jesus says to let the children come to Him?
Matthew 19:14

God does not change because a situation changes.
If God is immutable, then He will always have the same solution to any problem.

There must be another explanation.

No the explanation is right, I think. The situation in 1 Samuel 15:3 was that they could't feed more children I guess. They didn't even have a blacksmith at that time. They must have been incredibly poor. 1 Samuel 13:19.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Hi GodsGrace, nice to meet you.
(Is it allowed to have a discussion between Christians here in this section? But I saw you debating with seombody from the Christian side and it ended well...)
No, God does not change Hebrews 13:8.

No the explanation is right, I think. The situation in 1 Samuel 15:3 was that they could't feed more children I guess. They didn't even have a blacksmith at that time. They must have been incredibly poor. 1 Samuel 13:19.

Hi T,
Sometimes I forget what Forum I'm on!

I know God does not change....the question was to make a point.
So how could the situation be the right answer if God is Almightly and able to do anything...including feed children....

How's this for you? It's believed by some theologians...not all.
The O.T. was given to persons that lived in a polytheistic world.
God wanted to reveal Himself to them and He picked them because they were good at passing down stories, at writing (scribes), etc.
He revealed Himself as to what the people needed to know.
They accepted this God of Abraham and the stories were passed down from one generation to the next.

As the stories were told, and as the situations in the O.T. happened, the people were inclined to attribute everything that was done to God...even what God did not command. God said...God did...
But maybe He didn't?

This is not to say that the O.T. is not God's Word...only that some man-made writings are in there.

For your consideration. When I first heard this, I thought it was a very logical explanation of all the writings in the O.T. that are difficult to attribute to God.

 

[Larniavc]

You want me to prove God exists again.

No I don’t. I asked if you could substantiate God being responsible for the wind.

 

[Larniavc]

And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain what NOTHING looks like.
That would be nice to know too.

Anyway, why are you on a Christian site telling Christians that they're wrong about their beliefs and asking them to prove God to you when science has no proof for anything regarding the origin of life.

To the first paragraph. I cannot describe what nothing looks like. I did not say I could.

To the second paragraph I did not tell you that your beliefs are wrong and I did not ask you to prove God exists.

Can we go back to my original question?

 

[Larniavc]

I won't be speaking about the O.T. here.
As to the KJV,,,,perhaps you could get a version that is actually understandable and does not have to be translated as you're reading.
The NASB or the NRSV might be nice.

And because you've read the O.T. does NOT put us on equal footing.
I hate to bring up scripture, but:

1 Corinthians 2:14
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Can you tell me what you think that means? Particularly the implications of spiritual appraisal?

 

[GodsGrace101]

To the first paragraph. I cannot describe what nothing looks like. I did not say I could.

To the second paragraph I did not tell you that your beliefs are wrong and I did not ask you to prove God exists.

Can we go back to my original question?

I don't remember your first question.

As to the wind...I believe God created EVERYTHING....
I have no proof, just as you have no proof that everything came from nothing.
I won't say anymore on this unless you have a substantial statement to make.

 

[Larniavc]

But I must say that it does disturb me that you require ME to prove something that cannot be proven while at the same time YOU also believe something that cannot be proven.

Just so I can keep things straight in my head what have I required you to prove that cannot be proved?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Can you tell me what you think that means? Particularly the implications of spiritual appraisal?

Easy.
Only those that believe in God can accept the things of God.
For instance, I can accept that God created the wind.

Instead you, being a "natural man" that does not believe in God, cannot accept that God created the wind.

And other such things....

 

[GodsGrace101]

Just so I can keep things straight in my head what have I required you to prove that cannot be proved?

God.

 

[Larniavc]

I'd be interested in knowing why you think anyone believes in God.

I’m sure people have all sorts or reasons ranging from upbringing to deductive reasoning.

 

[Larniavc]

It's accepted scientific, cosmological, knowledge that the universe is 3.8 billion years old. There is agreement on this.

It’s not 3.8 Billion years old

 

[Larniavc]

Hi Larnie, nice to meet you.
In my opinion, God did not change. Situations did. God reacted differently in different situations. That's all.
Thomas

Hiya.

That’s a very good point. My question would be why has he not called for the destruction of men women and children in nations that do not follow his ways today?

 

[Larniavc]

just as you have no proof that everything came from nothing.

Once again, I did not say everything came from nothing.

Thank you for saying that you cannot prove God created the wind: I was really nice talking to you.

All the best.

 

[Larniavc]

Easy.
Only those that believe in God can accept the things of God.
For instance, I can accept that God created the wind.

Instead you, being a "natural man" that does not believe in God, cannot accept that God created the wind.

And other such things....

Fair enough. That’s my take as well.

Are you familiar with circular reasoning?

 

[Larniavc]

God.

I have not asked you to prove God. I know there is no way to prove God.

 

[Larniavc]

Atheism believes everything, came from nothing.

Incorrect. I do not believe everything came from nothing.

 

[thomas_t]

So how could the situation be the right answer if God is Almightly and able to do anything...including feed children....

Children don't just need food, they need education. But the (adult) Israelites had to go work in the fields to get something they could eat. Or are you telling me God should have sent Angels as nannies?
The children used to have nannies, already - the Amalekites. But they were guilty, so God wanted to kill them.

How's this for you? It's believed by some theologians...not all.

That's demanding God to do extra work, which would be educating the newly become orphans, when he kills a people. I reject this approach.

only that some man-made writings are in there.

I personally believe the Bible is inerrant - both in the O.T. and in the N.T..

 

[thomas_t]

My question would be why has he not called for the destruction of men women and children in nations that do not follow his ways today?

As to the judgement of entire nations at the occasion of Jesus's second coming - we have Matthew 25:41.
No idea what happens with children there.
This, in my opinion, will happen soon. I further assume this will coincide with Romans 11:25b "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."
I suppose, this refers to the point when Jesus will come back and judge the whole world.
He calls it harvest time in Matthew 13:30. Maybe it's not harvest yet.