Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[HonestTruth]

Its a cool site, free form extremes and well moderated.

''well moderated''

Ha! Not in my experience, sad to say.

 

[KCfromNC]

Cop-out. Address me with substance.

You've already said you will automatically discount anything I say which doesn't agree with your preconceptions. After all, you trust [your particular view of] God over anything I might say. So obviously you'll find whatever excuse you need to dismiss what I write as somehow lacking. Here it is a cop out. Other posters are deceitful. Whatever it takes, I guess.

 

[oi_antz]

Hey, you're the one claiming there's an objectively correct way to do it. Why not let us all know the correct answers?

Of course if you do that, you run the risk of people actually having done that and still gotten the "wrong" answer. Then what would you do? Better to leave it vague enough so that any failure can be dismissed with a simple "you're doing it wrong".

I can only know what I have experienced.

I will help you get this answer, but are you ready to expose your sins in this public arena?

You should prefer to take it up with Him privately IMO.

 

[Freodin]

You can deceive yourself man, but not me. I actually know that this is a reliable test.

"Do something, and if it works, you will know you did it right!"
- So what should I do?
"Well, you will know if it works".

Thank you for your extensive response, but I can state without self-deception, pride or delusion that I have taken the test... and it failed. There must be something wrong on your side.

 

[KCfromNC]

I can only know what I have experienced.

So if you haven't experienced the test failing you really can't comment on that particular subject. OK, fair enough.

I will help you get this answer

Sorry, I don't recognize you as an authority in this area.

but are you ready to expose your sins in this public arena?

You should prefer to take it up with Him privately IMO.

I'm not seeing this in the text you posted. Why should I believe you over the word of god?

 

[oi_antz]

You've already said you will automatically discount anything I say which doesn't agree with your preconceptions. After all, you trust [your particular view of] God over anything I might say. So obviously you'll find whatever excuse you need to dismiss what I write as somehow lacking. Here it is a cop out. Other posters are deceitful. Whatever it takes, I guess.

If you are not speaking truthfully of God, then yes I will tell you that. Spin whatever mental gymnastics you want, but the truth is the truth.

 

[oi_antz]

So if you haven't experienced the test failing you really can't comment on that particular subject. OK, fair enough.

I have though.

Sorry, I don't recognize you as an authority in this area.

Your prerogative.

I'm not seeing this in the text you posted. Why should I believe you over the word of god?

Please justify this accusation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can deceive yourself man, but not me. I actually know that this is a reliable test.

How do you know that it's reliable? Many of those who have taken the test have either endorsed a religion other than Christianity or have endorsed no religion at all. That would suggest the test is unreliable. Further, you refuse to even detail what the 'test' actually entails, beyond vaguely "opening the door" (whatever that means), enabling you to make ad hoc excuses when the test fails to produce the desired outcome.

 

[oi_antz]

You've already said you will automatically discount anything I say which doesn't agree with your preconceptions. After all, you trust [your particular view of] God over anything I might say. So obviously you'll find whatever excuse you need to dismiss what I write as somehow lacking. Here it is a cop out. Other posters are deceitful. Whatever it takes, I guess.

Actually, if it is true, I will know it is true. You have not said anything that is true that causes me to think what I have said is true. If you think I have missed it, please draw my attention to it. It is possoble that I did not notice it in passing.

 

[oi_antz]

How do you know that it's reliable?

It works every time.

Many of those who have taken the test have either endorsed a religion other than Christianity or have endorsed no religion at all. That would suggest the test is unreliable.

Why not in some cases some other explanation, eg the truth does not appeal to everyone?

Further, you refuse to even detail what the 'test' actually entails, beyond vaguely "opening the door" (whatever that means), enabling you to make ad hoc excuses when the test fails to produce the desired outcome.

No, I know actually that when someone invites Jesus in, they either will love Him or hate Him. There is no other way. Some people, for some reason, would like to feel as though they are blameless even when they are not. I think this motivates most of these resistants. If the person had known Him, loved Him and rejected Him, it would be obvious in their regard for Him. If they had known Him and hated Him, that would be obvious in their regard for Him. If however, they had not known Him at all and merely said they did because they thought nobody could prove otherwise, that would be obvious too. So just open your eyes and look at what is going on.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have though.

It works every time

Which is it - do you have personal experience of this test failing or does it work every time?

Please justify this accusation.

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Nothing about sins or doing this privately in that quote.[/QUOTE]

 

[oi_antz]

If you say so. I doubt you've personally experienced every possible reason the test might fail, but I guess you'll insist that we should just believe you.

No, you are right, probably a lifetime is not enough to experience every possible cause. But it is enough to give me a real sympathetic understanding of that position.

[QUTOE]Please justify this accusation.

You have lost me here. Can you please explain yourself clearly?

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, if it is true, I will know it is true. You have not said anything that is true that causes me to think what I have said is true. If you think I have missed it, please draw my attention to it. It is possoble that I did not notice it in passing.

You want me to read your mind and guess which posts of mine you've misunderstood or ignored? Yeah, that's perfectly realistic.

 

[bhsmte]

I have actions against Christianity by Cearbhall. I have seen unjustified and unprovoked responses by yourself against me because of my statement of a Christian position. Besides that nothing has marked my mind in this thread and I don't see value to go looking for it.

As I have stated many times, I have absolutely nothing against Christianity and some sort of belief in the same, may be the best thing for a particular person.

What I do take issue with, are certain people, who have a specific faith and can't accept that others could have left that same faith and or could simply not see things the way they do and they need to either label them, or insinuate they were never Christians. This could be an indicator of, a particular person having a strong need to protect their own belief, vs acknowledging other people can be different from them.

 

[Colter]

Beliefs about history and how it was recorded and kept becomes a diversion from actually doing what Jesus did. Doing what he did is where we find God as he found the Father. Regardless of the flaws and imperfections of human writings about miraculous transactions, the spiritual content of the teachings of Jesus can still be validated by actually trusting God as Jesus did, loving others as Jesus did.

 

[bhsmte]

I only rarely post and then only to make a point. I will not allow myself to get drawn into lengthy debates because it is a questionable investment of my limited time. We need to take up our cross and be about our Father's business. For Christians who participate here I would seriously ask you if this is a credible use of your time, whether it is helpful and has any positive value.

That is your choice and I would add, the choice of other Christians if they want to post here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It works every time.

How do you know that?

Why not in some cases some other explanation, eg the truth does not appeal to everyone?

Any evidence that suggests this is the reason? It could also be that the test is unreliable.

No, I know actually that when someone invites Jesus in, they either will love Him or hate Him. There is no other way.

You haven't actually detailed what this "inviting" looks like practically. Could you provide some examples? This would help us to confirm whether we have properly conducted the test and is therefore directly relevant to the claim that the test produces the desired result "every time." If we have properly conducted this test, and we still don't subscribe to Christianity, then that casts doubt on your claim that the test produces the desired result "every time."

 

[KCfromNC]

You have lost me here. Can you please explain yourself clearly?

My statement was a factual one - there's no talk of discussing sins or preferring to meet in private in the bible verse you quoted earlier in the thread. Seems like there are lots of unstated assumptions in play here that we're supposed to take for granted just because you believe them.

 

[Colter]

4. Is faith—the supreme assertion of human thought—desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

UB 1955

 

[bhsmte]

Had you truly known Christ as your savior, you would still be such.

Very primitive defense mechanism used by some Christians.