Superiority Complex.

[JohnCR]

MY FRIEND,

Your point is noted, but the fact of the matter is that EVERYTHING rests upon authority and quoting the highest Authority available--God--is the most appropriate way to answer questions about God that i can think of.

It works for those who are seeking Truth and are desperate enough to recognize it when it is presented. For those who don't qualify being willing to make the necessary sacrifices to attain this Prize, nothing would "work" anyway. Dilettantes have notoriously short attention spans!

As David Brog notes, "THE FACT IS THAT IF WE SEEK THE FACE OF GOD--DIRECT PROOF OF HIS EXISTENCE--WE WILL SEARCH IN VAIN. WE MUST SEEK INSTEAD THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. INDEED, THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD--HIS LOVE, KINDNESS, AND MERCY--ARE ALL AROUND US. WHEN MEN AND WOMEN OF FAITH ACT ON THEIR FAITH TO REFLECT THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, THEY ARE IN A VERY CONCRETE WAY BRINGING THE DIVINE INTO OUR WORLD."

It is this history of God's interactions with His Creation which is chronicled in the Bible, and this is why the Bible is used as a witnessing tool--it contains an authoritative description of God's benchmarks in dealing with His creation and His creatures. Some will hear and heed--others, unfortunately won't.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Well, yes, I don't doubt that there is little out there that would "work" to convert a nonbeliever in God to Christianity. I'm afraid we are all rather stubborn in our religious beliefs.

I just wanted to point it out because you kept taking the time to quote the Bible to atheists. It would be the same as if someone kept quoting the Qur'an to you. It wouldn't mean anything to you because you don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God.

The word dilettantes is completely appropriate here. Why should an atheist bother spending a lot of time talking about something that he/she doesn't believe in? It would be the same as if you went to a Loch Ness Monster forum. You would find people who fundamentally disagree with you that you can't find middle ground with. There will be a few wishy washy people, but for the most part you will find the two absolutes. You either believe the Loch Ness monster exists, or you don't. You either believe God exists, or you don't.

There is a good reason why most, if not all, people are stubborn in their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). In normal persuasion, you attempt to inch your audience closer and closer towards your point of view. Religion is all or nothing. There is very little room for compromise, and the debate seems pointless after a while. The best you can hope for in the end is mutual respect between both parties. So yes, dilettantes is correct. If it is obvious that neither party is going to give way, then what's the point of continuing an endless debate? Eventually you have to get out of the roundabout and stop coming upon the same points and the same arguments over and over again.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Well, yes, I don't doubt that there is little out there that would "work" to convert a nonbeliever in God to Christianity. I'm afraid we are all rather stubborn in our religious beliefs.

I just wanted to point it out because you kept taking the time to quote the Bible to atheists. It would be the same as if someone kept quoting the Qur'an to you. It wouldn't mean anything to you because you don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God.

The word dilettantes is completely appropriate here. Why should an atheist bother spending a lot of time talking about something that he/she doesn't believe in? It would be the same as if you went to a Loch Ness Monster forum. You would find people who fundamentally disagree with you that you can't find middle ground with. There will be a few wishy washy people, but for the most part you will find the two absolutes. You either believe the Loch Ness monster exists, or you don't. You either believe God exists, or you don't.

There is a good reason why most, if not all, people are stubborn in their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). In normal persuasion, you attempt to inch your audience closer and closer towards your point of view. Religion is all or nothing. There is very little room for compromise, and the debate seems pointless after a while. The best you can hope for in the end is mutual respect between both parties. So yes, dilettantes is correct. If it is obvious that neither party is going to give way, then what's the point of continuing an endless debate? Eventually you have to get out of the roundabout and stop coming upon the same points and the same arguments over and over again.

John et al. Good morning

This is a very interesting discussion, but it has been made quite clear in the last 24 hours that atheism is OT to this forum. I don't like it that it is, as I would truly enjoy engaging on these questions, but the rules are as they are. I simply am not allowed to discuss my atheism here.

So, I have a favor to ask before I leave this thread. I ask, as a fellow believer in Christ, for however much that counts from a non-theist to theists, that the Christians who will be frequenting this forum please forbear talking about atheists in a way that normally would challenge them to answer, to defend or explain themselves. I ask this because there are already numerous forums within CF, the congregational forums and Christian Apologetics in particular, where these sorts of comments can be made but atheists are not allowed to reply. As you can imagine, this is frustrating, especially if one feels one is being misrepresented, misunderstood or even insulted but is barred from returning an answer. If possible, can we keep this forum one place where this does not happen--where this advantage is not taken?

What do you think?

 

[Riski]

I simply am not allowed to discuss my atheism here.

That's not all you are not allowed to discuss, you must not discuss the fact that you don't collect something (like stamps) or that you don't do something (like ski) so you telling people that you do not sculpt is right out, on the other hand we are allowed to congratulate people on being fortunate enough to be able to believe in a religion (preferably Christianity).

Being an Atheist is seen by most religious people here as being a choice unbelievers make, they think atheists deliberately deny God, I think that's why they don't like atheism being discussed, you would think that because most of them know very little about atheism they would want to know what it's all about, but as you say even if they did ask we are not allowed to tell them
We are as you well know on the whole very nice people, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with burying heads in sand.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Well, yes, I don't doubt that there is little out there that would "work" to convert a nonbeliever in God to Christianity. I'm afraid we are all rather stubborn in our religious beliefs.

I just wanted to point it out because you kept taking the time to quote the Bible to atheists. It would be the same as if someone kept quoting the Qur'an to you. It wouldn't mean anything to you because you don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Just a quick word on this from my perspective--perhaps i'm the only one who is thus motivated: When talking with atheists, i quote Scripture for my own benefit as much as for those i am addressing. i know that if they don't believe in God they sure aren't going to ascribe any great weight to Biblical pronouncements, but looking up the Scriptural locations--sometimes a time-consuming task for an old dude--helps implant in my brain exactly where these Scriptures can be quickly found without out the aid of several Concordances and a Bible "Word-Search" Program.

Then, when i am wandering around the streets talking with homeless kids hanging out in the U District, (yes, they are surprisingly willing to talk to an old fart), i can zip to the point in answering their questions by showing them where to find stuff in the Bible--and can do so quickly without looking like the senile old fool i am.

So, basically, i look at this Forum as on-the-job-training--accepting the absence of belief and interest here in order to prepare for those out in the real world who are desperately seeking a ROCK to hang onto--one that doesn't roll.

That's my take on the subject. A little cynical? perhaps, but i have been around CF long enough to be realistic about how much can be done for those with hardened hearts.

PEACE TO YA--you seem to be a reasonable and admirable person. Always face the light!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Riski]

So, basically, i look at this Forum as on-the-job-training--accepting the absence of belief and interest here in order to prepare for those out in the real world who are desperately seeking a ROCK to hang onto--one that doesn't roll.

Do you think desperation is a good enough reason to believe in a God? like a last resort or a what have I got to lose?

That's my take on the subject. A little cynical? perhaps, but i have been around CF long enough to be realistic about how much can be done for those with hardened hearts.

Have you hardened your heart against Islam? or do you just not think about it?
for myself religion plays as much a part in my life as do bungy jumping and deep sea diving, which is none.

 

[razeontherock]

Sorry Ray but it's not a lie,

Not only is it a lie but you're in stubborn violation of our rules here. I don't appreciate you bringing the level of conflict I was raised in to my door, seeing that I've risen out of that mire by my own efforts. There's been a recent major overhaul of at least this part of the forum, and you are the lone example I've seen showing it was necessary. I wonder if the other unbelievers here appreciate your intellect on display here? Using a one-off example as a generality to prove a humanity-wide phenomenon is inferior to my abilities before I started kindergarten, so you might want to look into that.

 

[The4thrider]

I wonder if the other unbelievers here appreciate your intellect on display here?

staying outta this one. hes all yours, or the mods to deal with.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Do you think desperation is a good enough reason to believe in a God? like a last resort or a what have I got to lose?

MY DEAR FRIEND,

My point was that it demands desperation for a person to be willing to pay the price for a new life. The price? Jesus explains,

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:37-38)

It demands that one's entire personhood and life must be surrendered and laid at our Lord's feet to do with what He wills. Of course the rewards are well worth the sacrifice, but still the road to the prize can be prohibitively daunting to most people. The nearest example i can think of is that an alcoholic needs to be desperate enough--have hit bottom--to do what is necessary--work the 12 Steps and go through all the necessary changes in lifestyle--in order to stop drinking.

NO PAIN--NO GAIN! Desperation is a wonderful motivator!

Have you hardened your heart against Islam? or do you just not think about it?

i investigated Islam back in a day--i really LOVE the Sufis in particular, they are beautiful people--and found it wanting: Mohamed is long dead and buried while Jesus is alive and well at His Father's right hand. NO CONTEST!

for myself religion plays as much a part in my life as do bungy jumping and deep sea diving, which is none.

Yes, it shows.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[razeontherock]

If we can rewind this conversation back to the point somebody was saying you can't be a Christian w/o being a Christian, I saw a post by somebody I thought speaks to this rather well:

"If we believe that our very nature is sinful, it necessarily follows that a sinful nature can only lead to sinful thoughts and actions.

Therefore, faith in Christ is something alien to a sinful nature and couldn't have possibly come from it; if we believe otherwise, it is like saying something wonderful and wholesome has come out of poison. Sin comes from sin, period. So if something--anything--other than sin comes from our sinful nature, that only means a third factor is involved, namely Christ, and it is this factor rather than our free will which is responsible for our faith."

 

[Dragons87]

Completely ignoring the previous 9 pages...

Let's say an American and an Englishman are debating politics, and arguing which constitution is the better one. Surely the American is going to quote the U.S. Constitution whereas the Englishman will point to the various traditions, events and Acts of Parliament that constitute the British constitution?

Asking a Christian to not quote the Bible in a moral debate is like asking an American not to quote the U.S. Constitution during a debate of constitutions; it's completely baffling.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The problem is that Christians quote the Bible as if it is an authority that should end all debate. Like this:

Person A: X
Person B: But the Bible says Y
Person A: Oh. OK.

Ain't gonna happen.

In a debate on UK common law v. US Constitution, the participants are relying on logic whether they quote it or not. The one with the best argument wins (presuming that such a debate is winnable).

That's not what's happening when someone quotes the Bible. They expect a non-Christian to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen.

If you want to quote the Bible to explain the Bible or Judaism or Christianity, fine. If you quote it as if that ends a discussion, not fine.

Simple.

 

[JasperJackson]

for myself religion plays as much a part in my life as do bungy jumping and deep sea diving, which is none.

Well, if that was true you wouldn't be on these forums.

 

[razeontherock]

In a debate on UK common law v. US Constitution, the participants are relying on logic whether they quote it or not.
That's not what's happening when someone quotes the Bible.

Yes it is.

 

[Riski]

The problem is that Christians quote the Bible as if it is an authority that should end all debate. Like this:

Person A: X
Person B: But the Bible says Y
Person A: Oh. OK.

Ain't gonna happen.

In a debate on UK common law v. US Constitution, the participants are relying on logic whether they quote it or not. The one with the best argument wins (presuming that such a debate is winnable).

That's not what's happening when someone quotes the Bible. They expect a non-Christian to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen.

If you want to quote the Bible to explain the Bible or Judaism or Christianity, fine. If you quote it as if that ends a discussion, not fine.

Simple.

Christians must think because the bible keeps them in check it will work the same way for everyone, but as you say it Ain't gonna happen.

 

[razeontherock]

No, that's not the thinking at all.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Christians must think because the bible keeps them in check it will work the same way for everyone, but as you say it Ain't gonna happen.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Well, whether it "works" for you or not is irrelevant.

Just be aware that it contains the criteria by which you will be judged--and that gonna happen for sure!

God Loves you whether you like it or not, but He don't play.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

The problem is that Christians quote the Bible as if it is an authority that should end all debate.

That's not what's happening when someone quotes the Bible. They expect a non-Christian to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen.

If you want to quote the Bible to explain the Bible or Judaism or Christianity, fine. If you quote it as if that ends a discussion, not fine.

Simple.

MY BROTHER,

As per our Lord's mandate to His disciples, the responsibility of a Christian is to share the Gospel with non-believers at every opportunity. We are not responsible for the reception it receives or for the closed minds and hardened hearts which lead to a refusal to listen.

So, basically, whether or not "it happens" is largely irrelevant, and the responsibility for the consequences rest on the receiver, not the sender, of the information.

SIMPLE INDEED!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Dragons87]

The problem is that Christians quote the Bible as if it is an authority that should end all debate. Like this:

Person A: X
Person B: But the Bible says Y
Person A: Oh. OK.

Ain't gonna happen.

In a debate on UK common law v. US Constitution, the participants are relying on logic whether they quote it or not. The one with the best argument wins (presuming that such a debate is winnable).

That's not what's happening when someone quotes the Bible. They expect a non-Christian to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen.

If you want to quote the Bible to explain the Bible or Judaism or Christianity, fine. If you quote it as if that ends a discussion, not fine.

Simple.

Yes. I completely agree that all quotations need explaining. The gripe here seems to be Christians not explaining what they say, not that Christians are quoting the Bible. Christians, by default, must quote the Bible when they participate in moral debates, but they are equally compelled to explain themselves.

The solution is easy. Debaters should ask each other kindly to explain the use of their quotes. If the other side refuses or isn't able to, well, isn't that you want from a debate? A victory?

 

[Dragons87]

MY BROTHER,

As per our Lord's mandate to His disciples, the responsibility of a Christian is to share the Gospel with non-believers at every opportunity. We are not responsible for the reception it receives or for the closed minds and hardened hearts which lead to a refusal to listen.

So, basically, whether or not "it happens" is largely irrelevant, and the responsibility for the consequences rest on the receiver, not the sender, of the information.

SIMPLE INDEED!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

I agree with that to a certain extent. Senders of information are, to some extent, responsible for the reception. Communication is a two-way thing.

Imagine, for example, that a maths teachers is teaching calculus. At the end of the class it seems that no one has understood what she is talking about. It is on the part of both the teacher and the students (and in their respective interests) to ensure that the students understand what the teacher has taught. The students should inquire further and the teacher should perhaps change her way of teaching so that the students find it easier to understand.

Surely it's the same way for explaining the Gospel. The sender of information should endeavour to make sure the receiver understands, because a lot of grief arises not necessarily because receivers reject the Gospel, but because they misunderstand or misinterpret what it means.

Yes, the responsibility of consequences lie on the receiver, but if the sender loved the receiver, perhaps the sender could do a little bit more to influence the consequence even if it is not their responsibility.

 

[hikersong]

Just to say welcome back dragons87. Must confess, I was a little bit worried about you as you seemed to disappear quite abruptly. It's the odd thing about forums in that you get to know people a tiny bit, but have absolutely no clue usually about what is going on behind the scenes. Not that I'm asking. Just nice to have you back.