PDA

View Full Version : Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism



FlaGator
03-19-2010, 04:05 PM
I found this article interesting...


"Atheism is not the result of objective assessment of evidence, but of stubborn disobedience; it does not arise from the careful application of reason but from willful rebellion. Atheism is the suppression of truth by wickedness, the cognitive consequence of immorality.


"In short, it is sin that is the mother or unbelief."


God has made His existence plain from creation – from the unimaginable vastness of the universe to the complex micro-universe of individual cells, Spiegel notes. Human consciousness, moral truths, miraculous occurrences and fulfilled biblical prophecies are also evidence of the reality of God.


But atheists reject that, or as Spiegel put it, "miss the divine import of any one of these aspects of God's creation" and to do so is "to flout reason itself."


This suggests that other factors give rise to the denial of God, he notes. In other words, something other than the quest for truth drives the atheist.


Drawing from Scripture, Spiegel says the atheist's problem is rebellion against the plain truth of God, as clearly revealed in nature. The rebellion is prompted by immorality, and immoral behavior or sin corrupts cognition.


The author explained to EPS, "There is a phenomenon that I call 'paradigm-induced blindness,' where a person's false worldview prevents them from seeing truths which would otherwise be obvious. Additionally, a person's sinful indulgences have a way of deadening their natural awareness of God or, as John Calvin calls it, the sensus divinitatis. And the more this innate sense of the divine is squelched, the more resistant a person will be to evidence for God."


The story can be found here (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/index.html)

Wei Wu Wei
03-19-2010, 04:31 PM
I find that sort of philosophy to be terrible. It falls into the same trap as every other like it, including the trap of the atheist ideology.

Also anyone interested in Christian philosophers should check out Paul Tillich

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/tilground.html

That book is one of my favorites ever.

Starbuck
03-19-2010, 04:55 PM
The author poses the hypothesis that atheism is closely connected to father abandonment or some other father dysfunction. What then explains the inordinately high number of blacks who are Christian? And their near total absence from the ranks of those who call themselves atheist?

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 05:10 PM
The author poses the hypothesis that atheism is closely connected to father abandonment or some other father dysfunction. What then explains the inordinately high number of blacks who are Christian? And their near total absence from the ranks of those who call themselves atheist?

It is a logical fallacy to make the assumption you are making. The theory is that much of atheism is created from a poor to non existent father relationship. The absence of a father does not insure that all will be atheist. Some might have the opposite reaction.

Now ask your self this, if one professes to believe in God yet lives like there is no God, is not that person in reality a practical atheist? If a black man or any man for that matter claims to be a Christian yet fathers kids out of wedlock, sleeps with multiple women, sells, uses drugs and commits crimes is he really a Christian?

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 05:23 PM
I find that sort of philosophy to be terrible. It falls into the same trap as every other like it, including the trap of the atheist ideology.

Also anyone interested in Christian philosophers should check out Paul Tillich

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/tilground.html

That book is one of my favorites ever.

I haven't read as much of him as I should have but I will pick up that book. From what I know he seems to have an existential Christian Philosophy and I personally do not accept some of the principles of existentialism.

My focus lately as been reading A.W. Tozer and listening to his sermons. I find his view on the type of relationship man needs to have with God fascinating.

megimoo
03-19-2010, 07:55 PM
Finitum Non Capax Infinitum......by fivebarleyloavestwofish


John Calvin insisted on the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In dealing with those who reduced the sacrament to a mere symbol (a naked sign), Calvin insisted on the “substantial” presence of Christ. When dealing with Lutherans, however, he studiously avoided the term substantial, which they may have understood to mean “physical.”

Calvin affirmed the term substantial when it meant “real,” but rejected it when it meant “physical.”For Calvin the issue was Christological. He denied Christ’s physical, localized presence in the Lord’s Supper, because body and blood belong properly in his human nature, not his divine nature.

For Christ’s physical body and blood to be present at more than one place at the same time, his physical body would need to be omnipresent. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated at the same time in many parts of the world. How can the physical body and blood of Jesus be in Geneva, Paris, and London
simultaneously?....................."Because the Christ Is GOD and GOD is Ubiquitous ! "

Calvin believed that the person of Christ can be and is omnipresent. But his omnipresence is in his divine nature in that omnipresence is a divine attribute. The Reformers believed that Christ is now absent from us in his body (which is in heaven), but that he is never absent from us in his deity. The New Testament speaks of Jesus’ departure, his “going away” from us, when he ascended into heaven, yet it also declares that he is always with us, even to the end of the age...."Because The Christ's Holy Spirit resides in his Resurrected, human body at all times ."

When we looked at the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God, we noted Calvin’s axiom Finitum non capax infinitum, “The finite cannot grasp [or contain] the infinite.” The word capax can be rendered either “grasp” or “contain.” With respect to God’s incomprehensibility, capax is rendered “grasp.” When applied to Christ’s incarnation, it is rendered “contain.”

With respect to the Lord’s Supper, Calvin insisted that Christ, the God-man, is indeed ubiquitous and truly and substantially present, but he is present in his divine nature. Nor does the divine nature rupture its unity with the human nature when it is so present.

The human nature of Christ is now in heaven. It is still perfectly united to the divine nature. Though the human nature is restricted to its local presence in heaven, the divine nature is not so restricted because it cannot be contained by the finite.

http://fivebarleyloavestwofish.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/finitum-non-capax-infinitum/

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 08:51 PM
Finitum Non Capax Infinitum......by fivebarleyloavestwofish


John Calvin insisted on the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In dealing with those who reduced the sacrament to a mere symbol (a naked sign), Calvin insisted on the “substantial” presence of Christ. When dealing with Lutherans, however, he studiously avoided the term substantial, which they may have understood to mean “physical.”

Calvin affirmed the term substantial when it meant “real,” but rejected it when it meant “physical.”For Calvin the issue was Christological. He denied Christ’s physical, localized presence in the Lord’s Supper, because body and blood belong properly in his human nature, not his divine nature.

For Christ’s physical body and blood to be present at more than one place at the same time, his physical body would need to be omnipresent. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated at the same time in many parts of the world. How can the physical body and blood of Jesus be in Geneva, Paris, and London
simultaneously?....................."Because the Christ Is GOD and GOD is Ubiquitous ! "

Calvin believed that the person of Christ can be and is omnipresent. But his omnipresence is in his divine nature in that omnipresence is a divine attribute. The Reformers believed that Christ is now absent from us in his body (which is in heaven), but that he is never absent from us in his deity. The New Testament speaks of Jesus’ departure, his “going away” from us, when he ascended into heaven, yet it also declares that he is always with us, even to the end of the age...."Because The Christ's Holy Spirit resides in his Resurrected, human body at all times ."

When we looked at the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God, we noted Calvin’s axiom Finitum non capax infinitum, “The finite cannot grasp [or contain] the infinite.” The word capax can be rendered either “grasp” or “contain.” With respect to God’s incomprehensibility, capax is rendered “grasp.” When applied to Christ’s incarnation, it is rendered “contain.”

With respect to the Lord’s Supper, Calvin insisted that Christ, the God-man, is indeed ubiquitous and truly and substantially present, but he is present in his divine nature. Nor does the divine nature rupture its unity with the human nature when it is so present.

The human nature of Christ is now in heaven. It is still perfectly united to the divine nature. Though the human nature is restricted to its local presence in heaven, the divine nature is not so restricted because it cannot be contained by the finite.

http://fivebarleyloavestwofish.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/finitum-non-capax-infinitum/



The phrase is generally used in the context of being able to wholly understand the nature of God. God is infinite and the human mind is finite, thus the finite can not contain the infinite. We can never understand God in total because we don't have the ability to grasp His true nature. We would have to be infinite to do that and that would be impossible because God already occupies that being.

megimoo
03-19-2010, 09:02 PM
The phrase is generally used in the context of being able to wholly understand the nature of God. God is infinite and the human mind is finite, thus the finite can not contain the infinite. We can never understand God in total because we don't have the ability to grasp His true nature. We would have to be infinite to do that and that would be impossible because God already occupies that being.Do you believe that Jesus is true GOD,True man,and was Consubstantial,with the Holy Spirit and with the Father,while he was on earth as man as he is in Heaven now?

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 09:05 PM
Do you believe that Jesus is true GOD,True man,and was Consubstantial,with the Holy Spirit and with the Father,while he was on earth as man as he is in Heaven now?

Why do you ask? My position on the Deity of Christ is well known around here.

megimoo
03-19-2010, 10:27 PM
Why do you ask? My position on the Deity of Christ is well known around here.Just a question,don't get all defensive about it.

If I've read your testament of faith I don't recall it .John Calvin was leaving University of Paris about the same time as St Ignacio López de Loyola was arriving !Loyola later founded the Society Of Jesus in 1534.Their theologies are stark in their departure from each other given their common theological education.

djones520
03-19-2010, 10:57 PM
*yawn*

If it means something to you FlaGator, then good. But to me it's tired drivel that to me seems like he's more interested in making me look like a lazy rebel then what I really am. An intelligent person who has made my own peace with my beliefs. Furthermore, I've made peace with your beliefs as well, but it seems it isn't the same for you.

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 11:07 PM
Just a question,don't get all defensive about it.

If I've read your testament of faith I don't recall it .John Calvin was leaving University of Paris about the same time as St Ignacio López de Loyola was arriving !Loyola later founded the Society Of Jesus in 1534.Their theologies are stark in their departure from each other given their common theological education.


I wasn't getting testy, I was just curious as to why you were asking. I am basically a Calvinist/reformed theology. I believe that God is one in essence and 3 in person and I don't believe in transubstantiation during the Eucharist. I believe Sola Fida, Sola Dei and Sola Scriptura. I believe that Christ taught extreme pacifism even unto death and after studying scripture I don't believe in the concept of a just war as it relates to Christians. I don't believe that Christians should be involved with the running of government to the point where they may have to make a decision on what is best for their country or standing on their Christian ethics. The two aren't always the same thing.

I believe that Christ put a premium on loving our enemy and forgiving them and doing our best to take care of the poor. I believe that God wants Christians to live a life that offers a true alternative to the world and that we are to remember that everything we do reflects upon Him. If Christians behave the same as non believers then how are we different from non-believers? I believe that I am to treat all people with respect even if I disagree with them or their life choices because today's sinner could be tomorrow's saint. I believe that Christ wants me to read the Bible and put what I learn in to practice and not just pay lip service to it.

I understand that my interpretation of scripture is not to everyone's liking but I feel that they are the views that God has shown me and how He is asking me to live. I feel that God wants me to do what I can to improve the little bit of the world that I come in contact with just by treating people with kindness.

I fail at this more often than not but I keep trying because above all else I know that this is what God wants from me and from every failure I become a little stronger and a little closer to Christ.

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 11:12 PM
*yawn*

If it means something to you FlaGator, then good. But to me it's tired drivel that to me seems like he's more interested in making me look like a lazy rebel then what I really am. An intelligent person who has made my own peace with my beliefs. Furthermore, I've made peace with your beliefs as well, but it seems it isn't the same for you.

I have made peace with atheists beliefs, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that my curiosity as to what drives people to atheism isn't peeked by various explanations. Do I put any stock in what the article states? I don't know enough atheists and their backgrounds to speak intelligently on the subject. I just found it interesting.

But since you brought it up, how was your relationship with your father? :D

djones520
03-19-2010, 11:15 PM
I have made peace with atheists beliefs, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that my curiosity as to what drives people to atheism isn't peeked by various explanations. Do I put any stock in what the article states? I don't know enough atheists and their backgrounds to speak intelligently on the subject. I just found it interesting.

But since you brought it up, how was your relationship with your father? :D

Very good. I'm the only one in my immediate family who still has a relationship with him.

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 11:17 PM
Very good. I'm the only one in my immediate family who still has a relationship with him.

I was just kidding... I wasn't expecting an answer, but I am happy that you have a good relationship with him. Maybe the rest of the family will come around one day.

House
03-20-2010, 11:46 AM
It is a logical fallacy to make the assumption you are making. The theory is that much of atheism is created from a poor to non existent father relationship. The absence of a father does not insure that all will be atheist. Some might have the opposite reaction.

Now ask your self this, if one professes to believe in God yet lives like there is no God, is not that person in reality a practical atheist? If a black man or any man for that matter claims to be a Christian yet fathers kids out of wedlock, sleeps with multiple women, sells, uses drugs and commits crimes is he really a Christian?

So your response to a logical fallacy is to use another(No true Scotsman)? You're a Christian if you've embraced Jesus Christ. You can be a bad Christian and do all those things, but you're still a Christian.

FlaGator
03-20-2010, 03:31 PM
So your response to a logical fallacy is to use another(No true Scotsman)? You're a Christian if you've embraced Jesus Christ. You can be a bad Christian and do all those things, but you're still a Christian.

What I said was, If someone claims to be a christian yet behaves in a manner not consistent with Christian ethics then that person is not a Christian at heart. To embrace Jesus is to live as Jesus has called us to live. A person cannot claim to have embraced Christ and live a life contrary to Christ's teachings. Repentance shows that a person has truly accepted and embraced Christ.

So were is the logical fallacy in that?

Do you believe differently?

wilbur
03-20-2010, 04:03 PM
As it just so happens, my favorite atheism blog just interviewed the philosopher in question for his podcast.

Here is the post: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7093
Here is the link to pod cast: James Spiegel interview (http://www.archive.org/download/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot023-JamesSpiegel/023-JamesSpiegel.mp3)

I haven't listened to it yet, but I will comment further after I have. There are some comments worth reading under the story as well.

wilbur
03-20-2010, 04:04 PM
What I said was, If someone claims to be a christian yet behaves in a manner not consistent with Christian ethics then that person is not a Christian at heart. To embrace Jesus is to live as Jesus has called us to live. A person cannot claim to have embraced Christ and live a life contrary to Christ's teachings. Repentance shows that a person has truly accepted and embraced Christ.

So were is the logical fallacy in that?

Do you believe differently?

I don't think you fully appreciate the meaning of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Besides, its a truism in Christianity that there isnt a single person alive that has the capability to always behave in a way that's consistent with Christian ethics, all of the time.

FlaGator
03-20-2010, 04:32 PM
I don't think you fully appreciate the meaning of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Besides, its a truism in Christianity that there isnt a single person alive that has the capability to always behave in a way that's consistent with Christian ethics, all of the time.

That is true, but as Christians we must attempt to live up to expectations of Jesus even knowing that more often than not we will fail. However, we don't use the foreknowledge of failure as a reason to not try. The process is all sanctification and works over the life of the individual. Perfection can not be achieved in this life.

It is the action of trying to live in a manner that that is consistent with Christ's teaching that defines a Christian, not to simply say that I am a Christian and yet be totally unaffected in spirit by the teachings of Christ. For example, to say I am a Christian while addicted to speed, running a meth lab and selling drugs is not embracing the spirit of Christ. I would be a Christian in name only. However, to stake claim to my faith, I destroy my lab and the drugs I and seek rehab of my addiction I am behaving in a Christian way. If I relapse from time to time but I seek forgiveness of the Lord and again turn away from the addiction them I have remained with in the parameters for calling myself a Christian.

Thank you for clarification on the Scotsman phrase. I was unfamiliar with it and I see it's point.

FlaGator
03-20-2010, 04:34 PM
As it just so happens, my favorite atheism blog just interviewed the philosopher in question for his podcast.

Here is the post: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7093
Here is the link to pod cast: James Spiegel interview (http://www.archive.org/download/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot023-JamesSpiegel/023-JamesSpiegel.mp3)

I haven't listened to it yet, but I will comment further after I have. There are some comments worth reading under the story as well.

I've ordered his book. I'll let you know what I think after I read it. Also I'm listening to the podcast now. It seems interesting.

hampshirebrit
03-20-2010, 05:03 PM
I don't think you fully appreciate the meaning of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Besides, its a truism in Christianity that there isnt a single person alive that has the capability to always behave in a way that's consistent with Christian ethics, all of the time.

I've looked at your sig-line, and I have come to the conclusion that you do not fully appreciate, as many others of us do, that the CU ignore function is tailor-made for pussies. I really do not know why we keep this function going.

I realise that some of our members can be somewhat irksome, but putting them on ignore is really, really weak, about the weakest thing one can do. "Ignore" for me seems to be a mechanism for the perennial sulk, the best means of pussy-self identification and selection that CU has to offer.

Bragging that you are ignoring someone, to me, shows that that someone has really gotten to you. Obviously, you are not ignoring them, are you. Hardly... you are hanging onto their every word, regardless of how asinine it might be to you.

Many a time I would like to ignore some folk, but I would never really do it, much less brag about it in a sig line. I'd far prefer to beat them to a pulp. That's just me though.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 05:07 PM
AHEM

Hamps.

Put that Porsche porno mag down and check ya PM's :D:D

wilbur
03-20-2010, 05:19 PM
I've looked at your sig-line, and I have come to the conclusion that you do not fully appreciate, as many others of us do, that the CU ignore function is tailor-made for pussies. I really do not know why we keep this function going.

I realise that some of our members can be somewhat irksome, but putting them on ignore is really, really weak, about the weakest thing one can do. "Ignore" for me seems to be a mechanism for the perennial sulk, the best means of pussy-self identification and selection that CU has to offer.

Bragging that you are ignoring someone, to me, shows that that someone has really gotten to you. Obviously, you are not ignoring them, are you. Hardly... you are hanging onto their every word, regardless of how asinine it might be to you.

Many a time I would like to ignore some folk, but I would never really do it, much less brag about it in a sig line. I'd far prefer to beat them to a pulp. That's just me though.

While I like you Hamp, this is pretty absurd. Its not in my sig to brag, just to inform - and I think its pretty funny.

Rockntractor has the sole distinction of being on that list, simply because I have never read a single post of value from him - ever. So its simply not worth the distraction. Even Sonnabend has managed to avoid my ignore list, because admist the 90% BS, he does manage to post something worth talking about from time to time.

hampshirebrit
03-20-2010, 05:50 PM
While I like you Hamp, this is pretty absurd. Its not in my sig to brag, just to inform - and I think its pretty funny.

Rockntractor has the sole distinction of being on that list, simply because I have never read a single post of value from him - ever. So its simply not worth the distraction. Even Sonnabend has managed to avoid my ignore list, because admist the 90% BS, he does manage to post something worth talking about from time to time.

While it's kind of you to state your liking for me, if you have really not read a single post of value from a given member, what, then, is the point of drawing attention to that member by stating that you are ignoring them?

To me, doing so makes no sense. To me, it serves only to draw attention to someone who you just stated you have decided to ignore. See what I mean? I am then as likely to look at their contribution as much as I am likely to look at yours.

As I said, ignore is for pussies, or at the least, a bad idea.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 05:51 PM
...and we have one member who has ignored a VERY important question.

Wei Wu Wei
03-20-2010, 06:14 PM
I found this article interesting...



The story can be found here (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100318/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism/index.html)

I disagree with most of the fundamental assumptions of this person. I disagree with their beliefs about Truth and I disagree with their assessment of what causes atheism.

In fact, by most people's standards (using the more traditional model of God), I am an atheist, and (in regard to more recent posts ITT) I think I've lived a more Christian lifestyle recently than I had earlier in my spiritual journey (I was raised evangelical Christian).

FlaGator
03-20-2010, 06:19 PM
I disagree with most of the fundamental assumptions of this person. I disagree with their beliefs about Truth and I disagree with their assessment of what causes atheism.

In fact, by most people's standards (using the more traditional model of God), I am an atheist, and (in regard to more recent posts ITT) I think I've lived a more Christian lifestyle recently than I had earlier in my spiritual journey (I was raised evangelical Christian).

It's not what you've done, it is what you lack that gives me cause to feel sorry for you.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 06:23 PM
While I like you Hamp, this is pretty absurd. Its not in my sig to brag, just to inform - and I think its pretty funny.

Rockntractor has the sole distinction of being on that list, simply because I have never read a single post of value from him - ever. So its simply not worth the distraction. Even Sonnabend has managed to avoid my ignore list, because admist the 90% BS, he does manage to post something worth talking about from time to time.
If nothing I have ever said makes sense to you Wilbur than that is no better proof that I am on the right track.



Someone needs to quote this so the little bitch has to read it!:D

hampshirebrit
03-20-2010, 06:42 PM
If nothing I have ever said makes sense to you Wilbur than that is no better proof that I am on the right track.

Someone needs to quote this so the little bitch has to read it!:D

I'd rather he debates you and if possible, demolishes you, pigboi, or you demolish him. Either is good for me. Him putting you on ignore, or you doing that to him, does not work for me.

Like I said, I think "ignore" is a bad idea. When I want a ringing sound in my ears, I'll go to the BBC and FNC.

MrsSmith
03-20-2010, 06:49 PM
If nothing I have ever said makes sense to you Wilbur than that is no better proof that I am on the right track.


I can totally understand this feeling, Rock. :D:D:D

I have no idea why other people are atheists, but I went through my disbelief phase because I was completely ignorant of the foundations and basics of Christianity...despite the weeks of classes and my confirmation at the age of 12. Once circumstances (or God's hand) caused me to begin to understand that foundation and basic theology, everything changed.

Unfortunately for so many, unless a person takes the time to actually learn something, it's fairly simple to sit on the outside, looking at something with absolutely no understanding and just never "get it." Even some that attend church every week, if they never bother to actually learn anything, can go through life without ever "getting it." Sad, sad, sad...a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a soul is even worse.

hampshirebrit
03-20-2010, 07:32 PM
I can totally understand this feeling, Rock. :D:D:D

I have no idea why other people are atheists, but I went through my disbelief phase because I was completely ignorant of the foundations and basics of Christianity...despite the weeks of classes and my confirmation at the age of 12. Once circumstances (or God's hand) caused me to begin to understand that foundation and basic theology, everything changed.

Unfortunately for so many, unless a person takes the time to actually learn something, it's fairly simple to sit on the outside, looking at something with absolutely no understanding and just never "get it." Even some that attend church every week, if they never bother to actually learn anything, can go through life without ever "getting it." Sad, sad, sad...a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a soul is even worse.

Jaislijk. I envy you your surety in the afterlife. The arrogance of your position, the patronising attitude is stunning to me, and yet it should not be.

You talk of a two-thousand year old, man-written book from the middle-east as if it has any real validity today, while at the same time you must, you have to have, seen the people of the same book flying commercial aircraft into commercial buildings on 9/11.

Wake up. If AQ could fly nukes into our buildings, they would. If, seven centuries ago, your crew could have done this, or could today, do you not think they would? Of course they would.

There are only 7 centuries of so-called civilisation separating us from them.

Wei Wu Wei
03-20-2010, 08:04 PM
It's not what you've done, it is what you lack that gives me cause to feel sorry for you.

Lack is inherent to subjectivity but from some perspectives it is a plenitude

FlaGator
03-20-2010, 08:32 PM
Lack is inherent to subjectivity but from some perspectives it is a plenitude

I am happy that you find you lack of commitment to your previous faith a bounty worth rejoicing over. Your words:


I think I've lived a more Christian lifestyle recently than I had earlier in my spiritual journey (I was raised evangelical Christian).

speak volumes to the commitment to faith that you were raised in. You apparently were unable to totally apply yourself to that faith once free of your Christian roots you feel called to behave like a Christian. That is most interesting. I am not sure of the psychology behind it but I thank you for giving me something interesting to muse about.

See we have walked opposites paths. I was a Taoist who became a Christian where as you were a Christian who has taken the screen name of a Taoist philosopher. If you find fulfillment and joy in the practice of that philosophy I am happy for you. It is an honorable system of beliefs.

MrsSmith
03-20-2010, 10:23 PM
Jaislijk. I envy you your surety in the afterlife. The arrogance of your position, the patronising attitude is stunning to me, and yet it should not be. There is very little arrogance attached to the simple statement that I was an atheist because I was ignorant...and a little education fixed it. It is a fact that many people sit in church every week for years and managed to miss the main point somehow. Oh, and it's not "my" surety. Everyone has an afterlife.


You talk of a two-thousand year old, man-written book from the middle-east as if it has any real validity today, while at the same time you must, you have to have, seen the people of the same book flying commercial aircraft into commercial buildings on 9/11. Point one, different book. Point two, different "god," whatever theirs is. Point three, the book was started way more than 2000 years ago, was put on paper by at least 40 different people, yet together, tells the same eternal truths...something impossible by human hands. Point four, eternal is eternal. Therefore, the age is immaterial. He is still the same.


Wake up. If AQ could fly nukes into our buildings, they would. If, seven centuries ago, your crew could have done this, or could today, do you not think they would? Of course they would.

There are only 7 centuries of so-called civilisation separating us from them.
Of course they would. I don't need to wake up to see that. It's no wonder their leaders are so fierce in "protecting" the people from the truth...if more of them came into a relationship with Christ, it would be so much harder to con young people into dying.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 08:33 AM
While it's kind of you to state your liking for me, if you have really not read a single post of value from a given member, what, then, is the point of drawing attention to that member by stating that you are ignoring them?


Several in this case.

1) It informs both the poster in question and other onlookers as to why his posts will not see any response from me
2) The poster in question does not actually debate or argue - he just harasses - and has seemed to make an extra effort in my case. This is the best and most effective kind of rebuke one can throw at such an attention seeker with a personal vendetta.
3) As I said - I think its funny

And to that end, this is the last I will ever say about it.