Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[KCfromNC]

The truth is objective, and what Jesus said is true.

We have no idea what Jesus said, though, so this is really neither here nor there. Sure, we have writings of anonymous people claiming Jesus said stuff selected from a larger group of writings of people claiming Jesus said things, but that's hardly a good way to get an accurate picture of a person.

I think it is objectively believable and subjectively believable. Do you think differently and if so can you please explain why?

You're not explaining why you believe what you do, why would anyone else have a higher standard? One doesn't need a reason to reject something when no reason has been given to think it is true in the first place.

 

[oi_antz]

I am one of these atheists who never were "True Christians" or even "a believer" at all. I never thought / believed / imagined that I had " a relationship with Him".

But I am quite open to this whole topic, and I am always happy to communicate with people of faith.

So here you are, another one of those who claim to have the fool-proof way of finding Jesus... if done right.

I think I missed where you showed this promise, and showed that it is a "reliable test"... propably because I have not yet adjusted to the new forum software. If you could state it again, I would be grateful.

In the vision that St John received, Jesus said these words in Revelation 3:20

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear me kncking and open the door, I will come in and share a meal with them".

This being quite illustrative language, means that Jesus desires to be friends, and is always "knocking" (making the invitation), and if we should care so much to respond to His invitation and welcome Him into our presence, He will spend quality time with us. (Notice He does not say we will agree with Him).

What I did find is references to "discuss it with Jesus" and "pray". You also explained how you think you get answer to your prayers.

You might understand why sceptics are not convinced by this. Every other type of "discussion" - like the one we have here - works differently. We can and do get direct responses to our own statements... while with your example, we are left with imagination and personal interpretation.

What would you expect differently and why?

In a quest as important (as it is claimed) as "finding God", I'd like to exclude such obstacles... and I think that this is not too much to ask.

What if it is too much to ask? Do you then persist to believe it is too much to ask?

 

[Scripture Police]

Well, no. Scientifically speaking, there is observable and testable evidence for evolution. There isn't any such thing for "Christ" or even for Jesus of Nazareth. There is historical evidence for such a figure, but even that can be debated. As for his claims (that's what we were talking about, not his 'existence').

When I read "his words", I cannot even be sure that they were "his". There are notable instances in what is claimed to be "his words" that we know weren't.

As for "showing the flaws in Christ": when you make a claim, you need to back it up. It is not up to the doubters to shoot it down.

You are trying to use science to prove or disprove God's existence. It won't work. The creator of the universe specifically said you believe in Chirst by faith. Christ left you the Holy Spirit to know His words. I don't need to back up subjective claims, neither does Christ. Can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow 100%? No, all of life has subjectiveness to it, including your "logical view".

 

[oi_antz]

We have no idea what Jesus said, though, so this is really neither here nor there. Sure, we have writings of anonymous people claiming Jesus said stuff selected from a larger group of writings of people claiming Jesus said things, but that's hardly a good way to get an accurate picture of a person.

Do you suggest the authors of the bible, espcecially the New Testament (but respond otherwise if you like) were not honest? If so, why?

You're not explaining why you believe what you do, why would anyone else have a higher standard? One doesn't need a reason to reject something when no reason has been given to think it is true in the first place.

It was stated as fact by those who witnessed it, and they seem serious. More serious than you. That is reason IMO to believe what they said.

 

[oi_antz]

The problem with your proposed test is that if the outcome is negative (i.e., it does not endorse Christianity), instead of accepting the result you will find fault with the individual who has performed the test. According to you, the test must be produce a particular outcome or else it was not conducted properly. Calling it a 'test' is a misnomer.

Only if the test performed properly. If God is reliable, then it will always produce the expected results. It seems most likely that you are trying to cover your own reluctance to perform the test.

 

[KCfromNC]

I keep missing these, with BHSTSME it has happened twice. I am sure this is added by an edit after my reply, but nothing indicates your post has been edited. I almost missed this again if it was not for a review.

Yes, you feel you might not need to defend yourself, but I am concerned about this. If what you are saying is that you performed the test properly and did not get expected results, you are saying that Jesus has failed to keep His promise. This concerns me because I know that you cannot escape Him. You have chosen to not believe it, but I still have this faith. And if you are saying this, that He has failed you when actually He hasn't, it encourages others to be confident to do the same. Whereas I remember that you said earlier that you think the language is misleading, it seems that you really do not feel confident that you have actually had a relationship with Jesus.

I just tend to think that you have gotten into making a claim against Jesus that you really shouldn't need to do, and it is because you think somehow that you will benefit by convincing people that you are a genuine de-convert.Not as though I don't understand what would motivate that, because I am as human as the rest, but still concerned that you are making a charge against Jesus that I find to be unbelievable. That's all it is.

It could be that the poster you're referring to is engaged in all sorts of Machiavellian schemes to trick people into thinking, well, whatever it is you're thinking you're accusing them of. Can you think of any other alternatives? For example, maybe all this baseless stuff you take on faith might not be a 100% accurate representation of reality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Only if the test performed properly sometimes does not produce the expected results. It seems most likely that you are trying to cover your own reluctance to perform the test.

I have performed the 'test'. Many people have conducted it and either come away endorsing a different religion or no religion at all. So the 'test' doesn't appear to be very reliable.

As I recall, a while ago I asked you what would happen if someone who had never been exposed to Christianity performed the test. I don't recall you answering this.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you suggest the authors of the bible, espcecially the New Testament (but respond otherwise if you like) were not honest? If so, why?

No.

It was stated as fact by those who witnessed it

We don't know that the anonymous authors of stories written a generation or more after the fact witnessed anything in particular.

they seem serious. More serious than you.

Any evidence for this claim, or is it just a lame personal attack?

 

[KCfromNC]

What's with all the drive-by apologists?

What, you don't think random Christians are a good source of information on the reasons atheists do certain things? I'd figure that people who have never met us are the best possible source of knowledge about our motivations and desires. After all, someone who claimed to read something about gods in a book told them so - how could they be wrong?

 

[oi_antz]

It could be that the poster you're referring to is engaged in all sorts of Machiavellian schemes to trick people into thinking, well, whatever it is you're thinking you're accusing them of. Can you think of any other alternatives? For example, maybe all this baseless stuff you take on faith might not be a 100% accurate representation of reality.

No. I trust God above men. I know this guy, I see the deceit that motivate him. I feel myself being motivated to deceive in his place, and my desire is to support the truth that He has not really opened the door to Jesus. What do you propose the right conclusion is of your own desire given consideration of your action here today?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. I trust God above men. I know this guy, I see the deceit that motivate him. I feel myself being motivated to deceive in his place, and my desire is to support the truth that He has not really opened the door to Jesus. What do you propose the right conclusion is of your own desire given consideration of your action here today?

What behaviour counts as having really "opened the door to Jesus"?

 

[oi_antz]

I have performed the 'test'. Many people have conducted it and either come away endorsing a different religion or no religion at all. So the 'test' doesn't appear to be very reliable.

As I recall, a while ago I asked you what would happen if someone who had never been exposed to Christianity performed the test. I don't recall you answering this.

How did you open the door? How long did it take? Can you give referenc to the oroginal question or ask again? I am sorry that I did not respond last time, I do not remember it.

 

[KCfromNC]

No. I trust God above men.

So if someone says something which would shake your faith, you assume they're up to something sinister. That explains quite a bit :

I know this guy, I see the deceit that motivate him.

Of course they are deceitful by definition since they don't agree with whatever faith-based view of the world you've internalized.

I feel myself being motivated to deceive in his place, and my desire is to support the truth that He has not really opened the door to Jesus.

That's not truth, though, it is just a part of your religious faith.

What do you propose the right conclusion is of your own desire given consideration of your action here today?

If the pattern holds, I'm sure you'll be the first to tell me exactly what I'm really thinking and why.

 

[oi_antz]

What behaviour counts as having really "opened the door to Jesus"?

You must know whether you have done this or not, and I am offended that you could expect me to accept that you don't know. Really Archeyopteryx, you think God or someone more visible cannot see that a person is concealing the truth?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How did you open the door? How long did it take?

You give me some examples of what "opening the door" looks like and I'll tell you whether those examples have a parallel in my own experience.

Can you give referenc to the oroginal question or ask again? I am sorry that I did not respond last time, I do not remember it.

I asked what would happen if someone who had never heard of Jesus performed the test. I don't recall precisely, but you seemed to argue that the test can lead anyone to Christianity, regardless of their cultural background. I'm skeptical of that claim.

 

[Freodin]

In the vision that St John received, Jesus said these words in Revelation 3:20

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear me kncking and open the door, I will come in and share a meal with them".

This being quite illustrative language, means that Jesus desires to be friends, and is always "knocking" (making the invitation), and if we should care so much to respond to His invitation and welcome Him into our presence, He will spend quality time with us. (Notice He does not say we will agree with Him).

And because it is "quite illustrative language", which doesn't directly spell out what you think it means... you have of course no way to establish whether someone "opened the door".

Archeopterix already pointed it out: what kind of test is this when you have already excluded valid options?

But I will still follow your lead here: So how would I "illustratively" hear Jesus knocking and how would I "illustratively" open the door? Everything I did until now does not seem to be enough... so what am I doing wrong? And how would I know what I am doing wrong when I am do not even know what I am supposed to do?

What would you expect differently and why?

Well, direct conversation works differently. We do get indepentent input to our output. We do mostly get verifiable independent responses.

I am to assume that seemingly unrelated events, or personal thoughts and feelings are "responses" from Jesus. If someone is capable of such complicated and indirect means of communication... why I am not allowed to expect direct communication like from I get from all my other friends who come to spend quality time with me?

What if it is too much to ask? Do you then persist to believe it is too much to ask?

Now if that is too much to ask... why should I bother at all? What else could I expect? What else may I ask for... and not have it rejected and negated and its failure to happen blamed on myself?

One of Jesus' alledged sayings: what kind of father would give his children a stone when they ask for bread? What if it is too much to ask for bread... should they have faith that a stone will satisfy them?

 

[oi_antz]

So if someone says something which would shake your faith, you assume they're up to something sinister. That explains quite a bit :



Of course they are deceitful by definition since they don't agree with whatever faith-based view of the world you've internalized.



That's not truth, though, it is just a part of your religious faith.



If the pattern holds, I'm sure you'll be the first to tell me exactly what I'm really thinking and why.

Cop-out. Address me with substance.

 

[KCfromNC]

How did you open the door? How long did it take? Can you give referenc to the oroginal question or ask again? I am sorry that I did not respond last time, I do not remember it.

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".

 

[oi_antz]

And because it is "quite illustrative language", which doesn't directly spell out what you think it means... you have of course no way to establish whether someone "opened the door".

Archeopterix already pointed it out: what kind of test is this when you have already excluded valid options?

But I will still follow your lead here: So how would I "illustratively" hear Jesus knocking and how would I "illustratively" open the door? Everything I did until now does not seem to be enough... so what am I doing wrong? And how would I know what I am doing wrong when I am do not even know what I am supposed to do?


Well, direct conversation works differently. We do get indepentent input to our output. We do mostly get verifiable independent responses.

I am to assume that seemingly unrelated events, or personal thoughts and feelings are "responses" from Jesus. If someone is capable of such complicated and indirect means of communication... why I am not allowed to expect direct communication like from I get from all my other friends who come to spend quality time with me?


Now if that is too much to ask... why should I bother at all? What else could I expect? What else may I ask for... and not have it rejected and negated and its failure to happen blamed on myself?

One of Jesus' alledged sayings: what kind of father would give his children a stone when they ask for bread? What if it is too much to ask for bread... should they have faith that a stone will satisfy them?

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

 

[Freodin]

Only if the test performed properly. If God is reliable, then it will always produce the expected results. It seems most likely that you are trying to cover your own reluctance to perform the test.

Only if there is a way to know if the test is performed properly beyond looking at the results. Else it fails as a test.