Take the Jesus Challenge

[JGG]

Because if you seriously looked, you would have been a "seeker" already and would have at least started to doubt Atheism.

Atheism is not really something you "believe in." It is a lack of belief. For me at least, atheism is doubt. To say that I doubt atheism is redundant. I don't know the answer to "the god question" but as of right now, I don't see any reason to believe in one, thus, I am an atheist and also a seeker.

But of course, if you seriously look for God in the preferred way for him , you would not doubt Atheism but know that it is wrong and would of course, get enough proof about God's existance.

Of course! I must not be a seeker because I don't accept your belief system. I should have known that. Of course, if you were to look seriously at God, perhaps you would agree with me, that there is plenty of reason to have doubts. If I think about it for a second, it occurs to me that if I accepted any belief system, then, I wouldn't be a seeker.

So that being said, what is the "preferred way" to look at God?

 

[oi_antz]

GA777, you need to stop trying to prove to JGG that God is real. God will do that when and if He decides to. Until that happens you should really be helping JGG understand what is good about Christianity, because we know that through faith in Jesus Christ, we may come to know God as He is. "The preferred way" as JGG might say.

The right technique to use would be to stimulate him to think about God for himself, rather than ramming assertions down his throat.

I don't mean to tread on your toes, it is just that JGG and I have been discussing the very type of behavior you are demonstrating and we have come to agree that it doesn't really benefit Jesus Christ's cause.

It is more effective to encourage atheist's to recognize the love of Jesus, which is hard to do if all the Christians are looking down on them. Notice what Paul says here:

1 Corinthians 3:10-14

But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ.

12 Anyone who builds on that foundation may use a variety of materials—gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, or straw. 13 But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person’s work has any value. 14 If the work survives, that builder will receive a reward. 15 But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

Notice that everyone has the foundation which is Jesus Christ. Notice that what is built upon that foundation varies from person to person. Just be aware of the materials you are using when you do your building and you might be able to help someone grow toward the Lord. And don't go thinking that you can convert people because you can't. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that does that, so leave it to God and concentrate on what we are called to do: sow, water, reap.

Again, I want to call your attention to 1 Corinthians 3:

6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow.

Don't try to rush the work which belongs to God. Simply look for opportunities to sow and water, and take the rest to God in prayer.

 

[razeontherock]

Of course, if you were to look seriously at God, perhaps you would agree with me, that there is plenty of reason to have doubts.

One glimpse of seeing Him, and there is no more doubt.

HTH

 

[GA777]

Atheism is not really something you "believe in." It is a lack of belief. For me at least, atheism is doubt. To say that I doubt atheism is redundant. I don't know the answer to "the god question" but as of right now, I don't see any reason to believe in one, thus, I am an atheist and also a seeker.

Depends how you may take it. Belief is what someone thinks to be true, yet he doesnt have a proof of it. And about atheism, people believe that there is no God.

Of course! I must not be a seeker because I don't accept your belief system. I should have known that. Of course, if you were to look seriously at God, perhaps you would agree with me, that there is plenty of reason to have doubts. If I think about it for a second, it occurs to me that if I accepted any belief system, then, I wouldn't be a seeker.

So that being said, what is the "preferred way" to look at God?

I absolutely agree about having doubts,even having many doubts, because God wants faith, not blind faith.

And nobody knows that way except the bible. If you seek from all your heart, you'll be sure of God's existence. And you need to prove that by works and intentions of course.
Also, if you seriously search in real life, and the bible, you'd get enough results. For exemple, how could the bible predict many future events accurately in many places?

 

[JGG]

Depends how you may take it. Belief is what someone thinks to be true, yet he doesnt have a proof of it. And about atheism, people believe that there is no God.

Not necessarily. Atheism can be interpreted as someone who believes there is no God, or as someone who doesn't believe there is a God. Even the etymology suggests both are accurate. One is a belief, the other is the absence of belief. Most atheists are of the absence of belief variety. It is primarily believers who wish to pigeonhole atheists as "haters of God."

I absolutely agree about having doubts,even having many doubts, because God wants faith, not blind faith.

And nobody knows that way except the bible. If you seek from all your heart, you'll be sure of God's existence. And you need to prove that by works and intentions of course.

Also, if you seriously search in real life, and the bible, you'd get enough results. For exemple, how could the bible predict many future events accurately in many places?

Yeah, but if I search for evidence that my neighbour is secretly a werewolf, I can find that too. He goes out late at night on the prowl. He grows carrots in his back yard to attract rabbits so he can eat them. He has an extreme amount of body hair.

It's easy to find evidence to fit your conclusion once you've made it. It doesn't mean the evidence or the conclusions are valid. I'm waiting for good evidence that I can trust so I can make a conclusion.

I'm not going to get into the apologetics of it, but I'm not impressed by vague Biblical predictions on an infinite timeline, self-fulfilling prophecies, or prophecies which are only validated by the Bible.

 

[GA777]

Yeah, but if I search for evidence that my neighbour is secretly a werewolf, I can find that too. He goes out late at night on the prowl. He grows carrots in his back yard to attract rabbits so he can eat them. He has an extreme amount of body hair.

But humans have that ability, it doesnt need any supernatural interference, unlike things like miracles for exemple

It's easy to find evidence to fit your conclusion once you've made it. It doesn't mean the evidence or the conclusions are valid. I'm waiting for good evidence that I can trust so I can make a conclusion.

I'm not going to get into the apologetics of it, but I'm not impressed by vague Biblical predictions on an infinite timeline, self-fulfilling prophecies, or prophecies which are only validated by the Bible.

I'm not sure what evidence you're searching, but I can assure you that there are many which arent. Take these as you wish. All I can do here is trying to help you. I'll start with this one :



At one time the Egyptian Empire was one of the greatests, it included Canaan, Syria and Lebanon, reaching to the upper Euphrates. The future of Egypt was foretold in detail:

It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms; it shall never again exalt itself above the nations, for I will diminish them so that they will not rule over the nations any more. Ezekiel 29:15 (NKJV).

. . . and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put fear in the land of Egypt. Ezekiel 30:13 (KJV).

History shows the fulfillment of these prophecies. Egypt has not ruled over the nations since the time of the prophet Ezekiel. Egypt has been ruled by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, Constantinople, the Saracen Arabs, the Mamelukes, the Turks, the French, and the English. In recent years, Egypt has not had princes.

For 2,500 years Egypt has been from the lowliest nations, just as the prophet foretold. You can visit Egypt and see that Egypt is truly one of the lowliest of nations, in everything (millitarily-economically-socialy...)

Nothing vague here, and it is proved since the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, where it was said that that would be the starting point

 

[JGG]

But humans have that ability, it doesnt need any supernatural interference, unlike things like miracles for exemple

Really? Humans have the ability to become werewolves?

I'm not sure what evidence you're searching, but I can assure you that there are many which arent. Take these as you wish. All I can do here is trying to help you. I'll start with this one :

At one time the Egyptian Empire was one of the greatests, it included Canaan, Syria and Lebanon, reaching to the upper Euphrates. The future of Egypt was foretold in detail:

It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms; it shall never again exalt itself above the nations, for I will diminish them so that they will not rule over the nations any more. Ezekiel 29:15 (NKJV).

. . . and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put fear in the land of Egypt. Ezekiel 30:13 (KJV).

I'm sorry, that is not in detail, that is really vague. Detail would be prophecising precisely when Egypt would fall, the circumstances surrounding the fall, and/or the players involved. Saying that Egypt would fall, somehow, because of something, at some point in the future is really vague.

At the same time, if the prediction had been that the Roman, Parthian, or Athenian Empire, or pretty much any Empire in power at the time would fall, it would have been just as true, and yet those prophecies were never made.

Knowing that all things end makes this prediction pretty much assured. Furthermore, if the Egyptian Empire had not fallen by now, it has all of eternity to do so because no timeline was set. So, the prediction could never have failed to come true.

The odds of the prophecy being fulfilled was always very high, and there is no way it could ever fail. That's why I have a problem with vague prophecies. They're not very impressive.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm sorry, that is not in detail, that is really vague. Detail would be prophecising precisely when Egypt would fall, the circumstances surrounding the fall, and/or the players involved.

All your conditions are met.

 

[JGG]

Nothing vague here, and it is proved since the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, where it was said that that would be the starting point

Ah, now I get the point you're trying to make. Well, here are my further problems:

(1) Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 605 BC, however, the book of Ezekiel was written, at the earliest, in 593 BC, and even then is thought to have undergone various revisions and edits. So, this prophecy was made after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. That's a pretty good way to make sure your prophecy sticks, but doesn't seem likely.

(2) You omitted a great deal of the prophecy. I would have thought some of it was very important:

Eze 29:10 - Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. (11) No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. (12) And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. (13) Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered.

Now, this is problematic. There is no indication that Egypt has been uninhabited or desolate since the beginning of recorded history, and certainly not for 40 years. There is also no record of Egyptians leaving for forty years and then returning. Furthermore, considering that the prophecy says that no man or beast will pass through Egypt, suggests almost anything except invasion. More appropriate might be a drought, or perhaps some sort of large scale disaster.

Take points 1 and 2 together, and I would suggest that Ezekiel does not refer to Nebuchadnezzer, and thus the prophecy continues to go unfulfilled.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Ah, now I get the point you're trying to make. Well, here are my further problems:

(1) Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 605 BC, however, the book of Ezekiel was written, at the earliest, in 593 BC, and even then is thought to have undergone various revisions and edits. So, this prophecy was made after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. That's a pretty good way to make sure your prophecy sticks, but doesn't seem likely.

(2) You omitted a great deal of the prophecy. I would have thought some of it was very important:

Eze 29:10 - Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. (11) No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. (12) And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. (13) Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered.

Now, this is problematic. There is no indication that Egypt has been uninhabited or desolate since the beginning of recorded history, and certainly not for 40 years. There is also no record of Egyptians leaving for forty years and then returning. Furthermore, considering that the prophecy says that no man or beast will pass through Egypt, suggests almost anything except invasion. More appropriate might be a drought, or perhaps some sort of large scale disaster.

Take points 1 and 2 together, and I would suggest that Ezekiel does not refer to Nebuchadnezzer, and thus the prophecy continues to go unfulfilled.

I had this same debate with GA777 some months back and I presented exactly the same argument; that Egypt was never desolated or deserted as the Bible "predicted". In the end I gave up debating with him on this as his repeated insistence that the prophecy had been fulfilled was wearying. If someone desperately wants to believe something is true, despite clear evidence to the contrary, there is nothing more to be done.

I don't think acknowledging the "prophetic" problems in the Bible should inevitably destroy someone's faith. There are many Christians out there who accept prophecy on a more theological basis than a literal one.

 

[JGG]

I had this same debate with GA777 some months back and I presented exactly the same argument; that Egypt was never desolated or deserted as the Bible "predicted".

It's somewhat interesting then that he opted to omit those parts of the prophecy when he presented it to me.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

It's somewhat interesting then that he opted to omit those parts of the prophecy when he presented it to me.

He did the same to me - he only quoted the parts of the prophecy that appeared to indicate it had been fulfilled. I read the whole prophecy and did a bit of history research online, and some prophecy research to see if it had been fulfilled. It hadn't.

He also brought up a prophecy regarding Tyre, which I also looked into. It was basically the same thing; God was going to send armies to wipe out Tyre and it was never going to exist again (from Ezekiel 26). Tyre is still a populated city to this day. GA777's best defence was that the Old city of Tyre was destroyed (there were two parts to the city in Ezekiel's day). But the prophecy stated that the whole city would be destroyed and never rebuilt. Alexander the Great (if I recall from the debate I had with GA777) did destroy part of the city, but not the whole thing. After Alexander the city was rebuilt again. Furthermore, Jesus himself visited Tyre;

Matthew 15:21
[ The Faith of a Canaanite Woman ] Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

Jesus also mentioned Tyre;

Matthew 11:22
But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgement than for you.

This is a direct contradiction. Jesus, the Son of God, talking about and visiting the very place God said would be destroyed and desolate several hundred years earlier. So even Jesus knew Tyre was doing alright for itself despite Ezekiel's prophecy.

 

[Catherineanne]

I used to be a Christian. To return to it, even just for one month, would be intellectual suicide. I'd literally have to put aside all of the things I've learned about evolution, science, history, etc since leaving the Christian faith.

There is no need to abandon any human knowledge in order to be a Christian. Certainly some on the far left of our faith do this, but there are plenty of others who do not.

 

[JGG]

There is no need to abandon any human knowledge in order to be a Christian. Certainly some on the far left of our faith do this, but there are plenty of others who do not.

I tend to agree with that. I like to believe people of faith can separate that faith from knowledge. You have to admit though, that's not always the case.

 

[Catherineanne]

I tend to agree with that. I like to believe people of faith can separate that faith from knowledge. You have to admit though, that's not always the case.

Of course it is not always the case. But why judge anything by its lowest common denominator?

 

[GA777]

Sorry that I couldnt reply before, but I have no internet access anymore in my house.

Let me clarify 2 things :

1* If we have no proof of some events, it doesn't mean they didn't happen. There could be lost or destroyed history records, which may be found later on, especially for an event dating 2500s years ago.

2* I didnt include those prophecies because we have no proof of them if they happened or not. But the ones I mentioned can be easily remarked, because they talk about ancient and late history . And what is surprising is the changes it had before the prediction, and he said the land would be destroyed for 40s years, not forever like other places (babylon - edom ...) which got destroyed of course later on. What you need to judge is prophecies which we can easily judge now, not ones which happened so long ago and stopped happening, for such prophecies we may not have enough proofs showing their validity.

I will include all the verses which can be judged now about Egypt in Ezekiel :
29: 24.5-26 happened (evidence)
29: 17-21 (no evidence, happened 25OO years ago)
30: 1-12 ( no evidence, happened 2500 years ago )
etc etc we can only prove what was to be predicted our days or earlier ones because we can know everything through the media unlike before
I will now include only what was predicted to happen forever after nebuchad invasion, which can be easily recognized now :
3O:13
32:14-16

so there are around 5 verses in eze about egypt which are meant to happen, and they are clearly meant to happen after the invasion of nebuchad forever, so the time too is mentioned. There are other prophets who predicted about egypt more too, so it is detailed, and we have proofs for the later prophecies.

And the ability I was talking about concerning the werewolves is meant to describe that people can eat food and be hairy without being werewolves, but miracles can only be divine ( cant quote from here)

G.

 

[GA777]

And @ quote #52: Half what you posted isnt what I believe I told you before, but I appreciate that you remembered/understood the other half.

The tyre that existed in ezekiel days is still in ruins, you can find the ruins now. It was only built on the seashore before, but now tyre is much bigger,even at the time of jesus it was bigger,because the population was much less at ezekiel days. Just like lebanon, it was a country sized 3500s km only 100 years ago, now it is 10000s. If you study geography and history a little you'd understand that most of the cities now werent the same cities before, their size and population differs by the time. And now you consider all the ones i posted wrong because you couldnt fully understand 1 prophecy, I'll take this statement with a grain of salt

 

[JGG]

1* If we have no proof of some events, it doesn't mean they didn't happen. There could be lost or destroyed history records, which may be found later on, especially for an event dating 2500s years ago.

That's true. However, we cannot remark that these things did happen either.

2* I didnt include those prophecies because we have no proof of them if they happened or not. But the ones I mentioned can be easily remarked, because they talk about ancient and late history . And what is surprising is the changes it had before the prediction, and he said the land would be destroyed for 40s years, not forever like other places (babylon - edom ...) which got destroyed of course later on.

But Egypt wasn't destroyed for 40 years. In fact, not at all.

What you need to judge is prophecies which we can easily judge now, not ones which happened so long ago and stopped happening, for such prophecies we may not have enough proofs showing their validity.

I will include all the verses which can be judged now about Egypt in Ezekiel :
29: 24.5-26 happened (evidence)
29: 17-21 (no evidence, happened 25OO years ago)
30: 1-12 ( no evidence, happened 2500 years ago )
etc etc we can only prove what was to be predicted our days or earlier ones because we can know everything through the media unlike before
I will now include only what was predicted to happen forever after nebuchad invasion, which can be easily recognized now :
3O:13
32:14-16

Ezekiel 30:12 And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the LORD have spoken it.

No evidence of this.

30:13 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.

Again, you want to separate this verse from the rest, and let it stand on it's own. As I stated to begin with, as a prophecy, this is so weak that it's hardly worth mentioning. Not to mentioned that a number of "idols" in Egypt are still standing. Everything ends eventually. Given enough time this prophecy had to come true. It's probably also worth mentioning that there are still "idols" throughout Egypt.

30:14 And I will make Pathros desolate, and will set fire in Zoan, and will execute judgments in No.

We don't know what Pathros and No refer to, but there was no fire in Zoan/Tanis. In fact, the city was abandoned for fear of flood.

However, I should point out again, that it seems unlikely that each verse is meant as a distinct prophecy separate from the others. They seem to refer to a single prophecy, and yet you want to take each verse as though they are not connected to each other. That's where I have a problem.

so there are around 5 verses in eze about egypt which are meant to happen, and they are clearly meant to happen after the invasion of nebuchad forever, so the time too is mentioned. There are other prophets who predicted about egypt more too, so it is detailed, and we have proofs for the later prophecies.

Again: The book of Ezekiel was written after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzer. So yes, the prophecies must occur after that. Otherwise, I'm having trouble making sense of these sentences.

And the ability I was talking about concerning the werewolves is meant to describe that people can eat food and be hairy without being werewolves, but miracles can only be divine ( cant quote from here)

That's not the point I'm trying to make. When one has already reached a conclusion before finding evidence, then evidence to justify that conclusion doesn't need to be strong. However, evidence used to deduce a conclusion needs to be strong.

Of course my neighbour happens to be a hairy guy, who has carrots in his back yard, and works nights. Based on that evidence there is no reason to conclude that he is a werewolf.

However, because I already believe that my neighbour is a werewolf, the fact that he is hairy, stays out late, and lures rabbits with carrots is weak evidence that merely justifies that belief.

 

[HeathenWarrior]

A pastor once told me that he had a friend who was an atheist. His friend thought that believing in a god or Jesus was childish and he didn't see a point in it. So this pastor asked his friend to try living life as a Christian for one month and see if he changed his opinion. His friend agreed. He spent one month praying and reading the bible regularly and going to church. He made an honest effort to love Jesus and to show kindness and compassion to his neighbors. The next month he was baptized and became a Christian.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes the point in The Cost of Discipleship that obedience and faith are inseparable. Not only does faithin God lead to obedience to God, but obedience to God leads to faith in him.

I'm not asking anyone to post their opinions to this thread, though you may if you wish. And I'm not "daring" anyone to meet this challenge. But if you are a non-believer or struggling with doubts about Christianity, and this is something you'd be willing to undertake, I encourage you to do so. Not for me. Partially for Jesus, but mostly for you.

I tried that for 19 years. But since I just could not identify with it, the teachings, the confinement to a simple book, and the far too many contradictions, twists, and outright ironies to comply with it.

Then I became Asatru, and it has brought out the best in me.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes the point in The Cost of Discipleship that obedience and faith are inseparable. Not only does faithin God lead to obedience to God, but obedience to God leads to faith in him.

In the OT, faith is obedience, or doing what you are supposed to do. It's not just believing in your heart or something like that. It's action. Good post. But forget about challenging atheists with this. Try to get Christians to take this challenge.