Evidence for God from Science

Sugaaaaa wrote - "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God.""

REP: What Kmart wrote departs somewhat from that verse -

Kmart - "Saying atheists are all morons just happens to be a generalization that holds in all cases...what can I say?"


I also do not see Psalm 41 as a beginning of outreach or a method of engaging atheists effectively. I don't notice anyone in the early church publicly telling atheists they were fools or morons.


Kmart wrote - "Ticking off people makes me happy it seems....What a whiney person."

Kmart, so you continue to defend your rudeness and add to it further. Is this how you adhere to the command to 'love one another'.? Did Christ come just to save? Or do you think that he possibly came to transform his people? Is Christ simply your saviour, but not your Lord? If the answer is no then you should think hard about how you publicly engage with others.

Regards,

Blacknad.

I say this thread is locked or deleted...WOW...this is too funny.

We must be carefull how and what we say to people. Just as Christ hated the sin but loved us sinners, so we should hate the athiesim and love the athiest.

Sure athiesim is a foolish belief, all the more reason to pitty the athiest and show him/her the love God showed us.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

IRQ Conflict wrote:We must be carefull how and what we say to people. Just as Christ hated the sin but loved us sinners, so we should hate the athiesim and love the athiest.

Sure athiesim is a foolish belief, all the more reason to pitty the athiest and show him/her the love God showed us.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Not to mention the fact that the word "fool" in the old testament as used in Psalm 14:1 is in the context of a morally bankrupt person.

Jesus and his followers as recorded in the New Testament did not condemn and ridicule people, least of all those who were lost. They were in the marketplaces, the city gates and interacting to present the Gospel and good news and to meet and reason with those seeking or who might be inclined to seek if they heard the message.

There's room for humor in different forums and applications.

Here's one. Did you hear about the dyslexic Atheist? He didn't believe in Dog. (badump bump)

Big difference between something like that and castigating people, alienating them and seemingly rejoicing in their spiritual deadness.

There's a good article on the board here about Anthony Flew and his conversion from Atheism to Theism and the influence exerted by a Christian professor he debated and corresponded with through the years. Think that would have happened if that professor took an attitude like the one displayed at times here? Granted Flew appears not to have embraced Christianity, .... yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I bet that professor instrumental in bringing about such a monumental change is glad he chose the high road however.

Jesus saved his special anger and wrath for those who were religious and through their self-righteousness and building walls instead of bridges made it harder for people to come to God.

I'm by no means perfect and stumble many times and have to keep rein on my own sarcasm and passions.

I hope I don't go to ridiculing those I should be reaching out to whether they appreciate it or not.

"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted." (Gal. 6:1 , NIV)

For the record, I don't have any problem with KMart's comments. But, if you guys do, then that's fine. You have the right to address the issue. However, given the above, as well as the entire general guidelines relating to Christian relationships, do you believe that the way you've chosen to handle this situation is appropriate?

My concern is that this type of dissention does not edify the body. You've heard the old cliche, "Christianity has the only army in the world that shoots its own wounded." That's the way the world sees us. They're right, and it doesn't seem to me that this helps.

I still loled

Jac3510 wrote:"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted." (Gal. 6:1 , NIV)

For the record, I don't have any problem with KMart's comments. But, if you guys do, then that's fine. You have the right to address the issue. However, given the above, as well as the entire general guidelines relating to Christian relationships, do you believe that the way you've chosen to handle this situation is appropriate?

My concern is that this type of dissention does not edify the body. You've heard the old cliche, "Christianity has the only army in the world that shoots its own wounded." That's the way the world sees us. They're right, and it doesn't seem to me that this helps.

I still loled

It's appropriate to address the issue in the same forum it occured.

If we don't police ourselves in that regard, and allow things to go unchallenged then we give credence to the actions.

My concern isn't that you are addressing this, Canuckster. I said, "You have the right to address the issue." My concern is the manner in which this is being addressed. Thus, I said, "do you believe that the way you've chosen to handle this situation is appropriate?"

I'll confess that I've not handled issues properly . . . it is easy to get heated over theological questions. But, really, you are dealing with a perceived sin. You believe KMart acted wrongly, correct? If, then, you are going to handle that, then you've got to follow biblical guidelines in doing so. My concern is for that, and that only. If you are going to correct someone with regards to sin, there is a way it has to be done. Do you think you (in general) are going about it properly?

Jac3510 wrote:My concern isn't that you are addressing this, Canuckster. I said, "You have the right to address the issue." My concern is the manner in which this is being addressed. Thus, I said, "do you believe that the way you've chosen to handle this situation is appropriate?"

I'll confess that I've not handled issues properly . . . it is easy to get heated over theological questions. But, really, you are dealing with a perceived sin. You believe KMart acted wrongly, correct? If, then, you are going to handle that, then you've got to follow biblical guidelines in doing so. My concern is for that, and that only. If you are going to correct someone with regards to sin, there is a way it has to be done. Do you think you (in general) are going about it properly?

I do. I've addressed the issue. I believe discourse in the forum where the statement took place it the appropriate manner to address it.

I haven't gone so far as to call it sin. That is not my call. I just believe it is counter-productive.

This is a public forum. When we make statements publicaly we must expect to defend them or be taken to task for them publically or we should not make them in such a forum.

I was recently taken to task for statements of mine in another thread and I had and still have a choice on how to respond to them. I've tried to acknowledge my faults and imperfections and takemy lumps and move on. I feel free to state my opinions and concerns in the same forum and how others respond to them is up to them.

There's more involved here than the individual making the original comments. There are those who view them and infer that they are acceptable when they are not so challenged.

Might be uncomfortable at times, but I believe it is proper to address comments in the same forum that they are made. Matthew 18 is certainly a consideration. I wonder if Christ went personally to every Pharisee before he called them publically the terms he did?

Paul rebuked Peter too in the Acts 15 issue, because the issue was in the public forum.

Granted this pales in comparison, but the principal applies and I'm quite comfortable with what I've said.

When in a public forum, you have to expect reaction equal in scope to the forum of the original statement.

Whoa! This got outta hand real quick. My post was in general and not named at anyone, the original poster never singled out an atheist just athiesm. He was critisizing the sin and what people believe and showing it to be foolish. Sad but funny non the less. Sorry if you took my post to be a rebuke.

Jac3510 wrote:"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted." (Gal. 6:1 , NIV)

For the record, I don't have any problem with KMart's comments. But, if you guys do, then that's fine. You have the right to address the issue. However, given the above, as well as the entire general guidelines relating to Christian relationships, do you believe that the way you've chosen to handle this situation is appropriate?

My concern is that this type of dissention does not edify the body. You've heard the old cliche, "Christianity has the only army in the world that shoots its own wounded." That's the way the world sees us. They're right, and it doesn't seem to me that this helps.

I still loled

The Other issue to folks is that we know KMart and his attitude and Jokes around the Forum. Whereas people who are new do not...

my two cents

*shrug* I made my point. It's on record if anybody reads the thread, so I've done my part.

Badgering on something like this = not cool.

Jac3510 wrote:*shrug* I made my point. It's on record if anybody reads the thread, so I've done my part.

Badgering on something like this = not cool.

Making the statement in the first place = not cool.

But I'm on record too and very happy in this instance to stand by my comments.

This was supposed to be a happy thread. What in Hades happened?

forge... you forgot to throw the whipped cream pie! thats what happened

Forge wrote:This was supposed to be a happy thread. What in Hades happened?

The philosophy of appeasement invaded. There was a brief struggle, at which time, those in the right realized there are some bridges not worth dying on, and thus, there was a mass abandoning of the thread.

There is still one lifejacket left. I suggest you take it and run, quickly, the other way.

I was never here.

edited because I mispelled "here" . . . wuh?!?