Evidence for God from Science

Jack, BOTH Five Point Calvinism AND Arminianism have some truths in their belief system. But make no mistake about it, they are BOTH theologically flawed for differing reasons. In FP Calvinism, there is NO ability for those eternally lost to EVER come to Christ - as it teaches that God never desired nor will EVER give them this ability. So we're to believe that God WANTS most people - vast BILLIONS to only live miserable lives and die, prolific and trapped in their sins, condemned to eternal hell BEFORE they ever sinned once or were even born - and NOT for any foreknowledge of THEM rejecting HIM, but because HE rejected THEM. But the Scriptural reality is there is only one reason why people are not saved - and it's not because God is waiting to open their eyes - its because He honors a willing heart, one willing to listen and positively respond to His enlightening as He leads them towards salvation.

I find it deplorable that when addressing an unbeliever, they are told by Calvinists that the reason they don't believe is because they CAN'T - that they haven't "yet been regenerated to do so." Romans 1 tells us that ALL men know basic things about God's attributes, His benevolence, His provision, but THEY chose INSTEAD not to honor what He has already shown them - with the obvious implication being that they COULD have at least honored God as He's ALREADY revealed Himself, but they refused to. In fact, they did the very opposite - and thus His anger and condemnation. Acts 10 shows the Roman Centurion Cornelius, honoring what God has ALREADY shown Him, praying and seeking Him diligently, WELL before He ever heard the Gospel from Peter and THEN (and ONLY then) he responded, RECEIVED Christ, and was he saved. Did God not woo Cornelius BEFORE salvation? Certainly. But could Cornelius respond to and honor God in RESPONSE to what he already knew and had been shown BEFORE salvation. Obviously! And because he did so, God honored Cornelius by sending Peter. But Cornelius could have had a hard heart and mind. He could have ignored all God was showing Him. But He had a teachable, open heart and mind. Most don't!

The ONLY reason ANY unbeliever is held back from belief is his OWN hard heart and mind - which he can decide to have OR to have an open heart and mind!!! IF they will not permanently resist Him, God will be able to enlighten them, all the way to salvation. God constantly warns, threatens, shows great anger that people will not repent and believe - even stern warnings including hell. Why the anger, the threats, the warnings IF they remain unsaved because God has not allowed them the regeneration belief and repentance supposedly requires? And does God or does He not want people to turn from their rebellion? Why threaten, why have anger, IF the reason for their disobedience is that God refuses them the tools and ability to believe? When God said "all men everywhere" are to repent - WHEN does He expect obedience? Does He command something He has withheld one's ability to obey? Does God, Who is fair, just, loving and merciful - and Who tells us, in Matthew 5, that, "if you (only) love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Does a God Who says such Himself only love SOME men? When the lawyer wants to selectively pick and choose who God commands we love, what does Jesus reveal about whom we are to love - just the ones like us - or does He hold up the "despised" Samaritan as being virtuous for showing love and compassion for a horribly beaten stranger? This idea that God doesn't love ALL, that He wants some (MOST!) men to perish, is an evil doctrine (That's not to say He doesn't ordain righteous, eternal punishment for those whom refuse to obey Him).

And for all the virtues and enlightening men like Luther and Calvin brought us, let's not hold them up to sometimes be any different than our fellow sinful men. Luther wrote terrible, hideous and hateful incitements to hurt and do violence against Jews! The theologies originating with both Calvin and Arminius have their flaws in trying to put God into a theological box of man-made logic. Both have unScriptural elements! IF God has operated as FP Calvinism teaches, He is a nightmare for most of the world. And His hatred of most of mankind would boggle the mind, as this is the very same (fallen) world that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already." (note this verse doesn't say that "those whom God gave the ability to believe are not condemned, but those He did not give such ability to are condemned already). And the "might be saved" refers to God's condition that Jesus must be received in hearts and minds to be saved.

Really, to be active on an apologetics forum and using arguments and reason (just as the Apostle Paul was famous for) with unbelievers makes no sense IF they cannot or don't have the ABILITY to understand or discern the truth of what you are arguing for, until they are first "regenerated." If true, you're wasting your time! But this goes against many, many Scriptures. Let's not forget, Five Point Calvinism teaches THERE IS NO CHOICE BY MAN, as it's ONLY a matter of what God decides for a person - and He decided so before anyone was born or the earth existed, and was NOT based upon their rejection but ONLY upon HIS will. Again, in FP Calvinism, there is NO choice before man. Why does He "stand at the door and knock" IF HE is the one that must open that door and come on in? What does God say a person must do? "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." This makes it clear that we DO have a choice to make, that it's one available to us, that we CAN make it (or not), and that He is waiting upon OUR choice to accept what He has already made availble to us (in Jesus, through the Cross). Otherwise, why is He merely standing outside and continuing to knock? What might He be waiting on? What is His knocking alerting us to? And if not our choice, what is that door for?

If I were an unbeliever and a Calvinist told me that the reason I don't believe is that 1) I have no ability to do so and 2)this is because I haven't yet been regenerated: I would likely dismiss this as belief in a false god that purports to love all, says he wants them to believe, repent and have faith, but he's a hypocrite who condemns vast billions to unthinkable suffering and absolutely NO hope... simply BECAUSE that is what he so wills. This god tells us to love EVERYONE, that EVERYONE is our neighbor, while HE hates FAR more than he loves, and then he will punish them ETERNALLY, for NO other reason except that this is what he has decreed for them before they were born. And even if I DID think such a god really existed, as an unbeliever, I would very likely think to myself that, "if this god exists, there is an excellent chance that I am not one of his "Elect" - I mean, DO THE MATH! And so I might as well do all I want, as I want, when I want - I mean, why NOT? As such a god's existence would give the non-elect little reason to want follow any aspect of Biblical morality - not that I'd want to, mind you. But from a practical assessment, what would be the purpose? And if I'm not of his Elect - well, if you're screwed, you're screwed - right? I mean, I can't do what I wasn't meant to do, wasn't given the ability to do. If I was created to just sin, die and then be punished, well, that reality means this Five Point god is a nightmare for most men. He threatens, warns, shows great anger at unrepentance - but he hasn't made the people he's angry at CAPABLE of repentance. Yeah, right, that makes a lot sense. Really, this god is as human-like as all of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods. Pity!

To ANYONE reading this, you CAN believe in Christ and obey God's requirement to have faith IF you want to. IF you want to, He'll do all the rest to make salvation possible. Don't let anyone tell you differently!!!

Phillip,

I belong to a large traditional Bible believing Reformed Presbyterian Christian Church
and our primary focus is on carrying out the Lord Christ's Great Commission first here
in our own area and then also worldwide.

Here is what I understand the Great Commission to be: First a man must be born again
(aka regeneration) by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (Jh. 3:3), second a man
must accept the Lord Christ as his personal Savior by the supernatural power of the Holy
Spirit (Jh. 3:16), and third this newly regenerated life must then began the lifelong
process of being taught the "fruits of the Holy Spirit" as partly listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
Fruits such as tough love, kindness, patience, sympathy, empathy, faith, hope, joy,
long-suffering and such like virtues. This too is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

The above is primarily what I am interested in emphasizing as being what is most
important.

I also like to have fun, laugh a lot and make what I call a positive uplifting cheerful
upward mobile optimistic contribution to any forum of which I am a member.

Here is a paragraph I wrote to introduce myself to another forum of which I am a
member. I put it here to illustrate what I just said about myself.

Jack Hectorman:
Family man, husband, father, grandfather, married young "until death do us part" now
living happily ever after with lovely wife, children, and many grandchildren. Christian
Conservative Calvinist-Postmillennialist Philosophical Presbyterian, writing and holding
forth with locked-down absolute certainty of the gradually realized incremental worldwide
victory of Christendom and Christian Conservatism as the millenniums roll forward.
Determined optimist. Herald of faith, hope, tough love, political conflict, carnivorous
anti-vegetarianism .. /joke .. and conspicuous consumerism [it creates jobs, plus its joyous
to overflow your shopping cart, same day, at Sam's Club and Walmart .. lol ..] Addicted
to life, mind-stimulating movies, exhilarating music, interest-gripping books, classical
music, unending political conflict, and five-dollar Starbucks caramel lattes with
extra-syrup, piled-high with whipped cream, caramel drizzle, and sprinkled cinnamon
on top Greatly enjoy the music of Andrea Bocelli, Sarah Brightman, Andre' Rieu,
Anna Netrebko, Pavarotti, Placido Domingo, and anything David Foster produces, eg,
Andrea Bocelli concerts. ` Thought For Today: "Only the dead have seen an end to war,
and politics is war by another name."

I also put that up there to emphasize again the fact that I like to have a good time and
enjoy myself on a forum. I don't enjoy endless unproductive haggling and bickering among
fellow Christians. I like to make positive up-lifting contributions to people's lives, not
"jump on them" when they "say something I don't particularly like" or agree with. I certainly
do not mind thread political war between Conservative Christians and our common enemy the
Liberal Secular Humanists, but I have no intention of haggling and bickering with my fellow
Christians over highly controversial doctrines within Christendom. For example when fully
committed Protestants decide to "really get it on" with fully committed Catholics, then it
turns into a thread verbal bloodbath that no friendship can survive. Same with the fully
committed Calvinists and fully committed Arminians. Nobody wins and here is most often
why nobody wins these type wars: Sadly, to a significant extent the Internet is a place
where people who are locked-down on what they believe get together to bicker and
haggle with other people who are locked-down on what they believe, with all tribes
usually solemnly declaring they will gladly follow the evidence wherever it goes while
at the same time knowing full-well that they have already made up their minds to
ignore all evidences that contradict what they know full well they are locked down on
believing.


___________________


Before I made the post to which you responded I was reading this thread, came across
Furstentum Liechtenstein's post, appreciated it, and decided to add some thoughts
as a positive contribution to his post and the thread.

You then took opportunity to pounce.

You selected two of my statements (down below) and launched into your Calvinism
is a perversion of the gospel statement, which statement is on its face absurd. Its
absurd to say that the reformers who gave us The Protestant Reformation preached a
perverted gospel. Its absurd to make the claim that Charles Spurgeon preached
a perverted gospel. Its absurd to say that the men who wrote the Westminster
Confession preached a perverted gospel. Its absurd to say that the large number
of Bible believing Reformed Calvinistic Christian churches in America preach a
perverted gospel. Its absurd to say that the great reformers Calvin, Knox, Luther,
and all the others preached a perverted gospel. Its absurd to say that the huge
list of very distinguished Bible believing men who have distinguished themselves
as lights and ornaments of Christendom preached a perverted gospel, men like the
Hodges of old Princeton (Charles Hodge and A.A. Hodge) men like B.B. Warfield
and W.G.T. Shedd, men like R.L. Dabney and the great Church father Augustine.
Its absurd to say that list up there preached a perversion of the gospel.

Here is what I previously said that you pounced upon:
"First, the Holy Spirit supernaturally regenerates the spiritually dead human soul so
that it can now understand and positively respond to spiritual truth. (Jh.3:3)"__Jack H.

"Second, the Holy Spirit supernaturally makes it possible for this "new life" (that is
the newly regenerated soul) to come to actually believe on the Lord Christ as Savior.
(Jh. 3:16)"__Jack H.

After you pounced upon those two simple harmless statements and launched into
your absurd statement that Calvinism was a perversion of the gospel, I then politely
and calmly tried to explain to you that I was not here in this thread or on this forum
looking to argue about the Calvinism vs. Arminian controversy. You then took that
post as an opportunity to launch into what amounts to an emotion-laden Arminian rant
packed with Straw Men.

Btw, posts such as your last one is all the evidence calm men need in order to reach
the conclusion that its a total waste of time to even discuss, much less seriously
argue, the Calvinist vs. Arminian controversy in threads or anywhere else. Its more
profitable to spend that time praying for and promoting with written articles on
the web such Great Commission orgo's as Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse.
They are a Christian orgo that does in fact preach the simple gospel to the unsaved
in far away lands as well as meeting some of their physical needs. They do a huge
amount of work with their "Christmas shoebox project" to put the pure simple
gospel into the minds of young children in foreign lands. I think all will enjoy
this video about Samaritan's Purse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk11_tqyMKs

Btw, the first words out of my mouth when I meet an unsaved person is "whosoever
will may come" and "for God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that
whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

_________________

You may have picked up on the fact that I self-identified as a Christian
Conservative Calvinist-Postmillennialist Philosophical Presbyterian. I
hope the very mention of the fact that I am a Postmillennialist does
not cause you to launch into an attack on Postmillennialism!

.. lol ..

PS
I am a very run-of-the-mill Christian. I hold not a single weirdo doctrine
on any subject. I am fully orthodox, a simple traditional Bible believing
down-to-earth Christian family man. I don't "handle snakes" .. lol ..
I don't "speak in tongues" ... I don't ever have any "visions" /grin ..
I have not been "kidnapped by aliens" and taken to their home planet
for medical experiments ... I do not believe in Bigfoot ... I do not
hold to any type conspiracy theories .. I have not had any "near death
experiences" .. I have never "been to Heaven" though I do plan to go
there when I die .. /smile

Best to you and yours
during this very best
time of the year,
Phillip.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

Here is what I understand the Great Commission to be: First a man must be born again
(aka regeneration) by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (Jh. 3:3), second a man
must accept the Lord Christ as his personal Savior by the supernatural power of the Holy
Spirit (Jh. 3:16), and third this newly regenerated life must then began the lifelong
process of being taught the "fruits of the Holy Spirit" as partly listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
Fruits such as tough love, kindness, patience, sympathy, empathy, faith, hope, joy,
long-suffering and such like virtues. This too is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Well put Jack, though I personally would not use the word "regenerate" ( I tend to favour renew).
I like the way you emphasized that it is the HS that allows all this to happen in Us.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Here is what I understand the Great Commission to be: First a man must be born again
(aka regeneration) by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (Jh. 3:3), second a man
must accept the Lord Christ as his personal Savior by the supernatural power of the Holy
Spirit (Jh. 3:16), and third this newly regenerated life must then began the lifelong
process of being taught the "fruits of the Holy Spirit" as partly listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
Fruits such as tough love, kindness, patience, sympathy, empathy, faith, hope, joy,
long-suffering and such like virtues. This too is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Well put Jack, though I personally would not use the word "regenerate" ( I tend to favour renew).
I like the way you emphasized that it is the HS that allows all this to happen in Us.

Thanks Paul.

"Renew" sounds good to me.

I picked up the word "regeneration" from theology books over the years as
the theological word for being "born again."

Perhaps "renew" is a more accurate word. I would like to know why you
prefer the word "renew." I'm going to take a guess that its perhaps because
"renew" is a better rendering of the New Testament concept of being
'born again"?

♫

JackHectorman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Here is what I understand the Great Commission to be: First a man must be born again
(aka regeneration) by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (Jh. 3:3), second a man
must accept the Lord Christ as his personal Savior by the supernatural power of the Holy
Spirit (Jh. 3:16), and third this newly regenerated life must then began the lifelong
process of being taught the "fruits of the Holy Spirit" as partly listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
Fruits such as tough love, kindness, patience, sympathy, empathy, faith, hope, joy,
long-suffering and such like virtues. This too is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Well put Jack, though I personally would not use the word "regenerate" ( I tend to favour renew).
I like the way you emphasized that it is the HS that allows all this to happen in Us.

Thanks Paul.

"Renew" sounds good to me.

I picked up the word "regeneration" from theology books over the years as
the theological word for being "born again."

Perhaps "renew" is a more accurate word. I would like to know why you
prefer the word "renew." I'm going to take a guess that its perhaps because
"renew" is a better rendering of the New Testament concept of being
'born again"?

♫

Maybe because I know a few Hindu's, Buddhists and such, it is a bit to "reincarnation" like, know what I mean?

PaulSacramento wrote:

JackHectorman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Here is what I understand the Great Commission to be: First a man must be born again
(aka regeneration) by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (Jh. 3:3), second a man
must accept the Lord Christ as his personal Savior by the supernatural power of the Holy
Spirit (Jh. 3:16), and third this newly regenerated life must then began the lifelong
process of being taught the "fruits of the Holy Spirit" as partly listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
Fruits such as tough love, kindness, patience, sympathy, empathy, faith, hope, joy,
long-suffering and such like virtues. This too is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Well put Jack, though I personally would not use the word "regenerate" ( I tend to favour renew).
I like the way you emphasized that it is the HS that allows all this to happen in Us.

Thanks Paul.

"Renew" sounds good to me.

I picked up the word "regeneration" from theology books over the years as
the theological word for being "born again."

Perhaps "renew" is a more accurate word. I would like to know why you
prefer the word "renew." I'm going to take a guess that its perhaps because
"renew" is a better rendering of the New Testament concept of being
'born again"?

♫

Maybe because I know a few Hindu's, Buddhists and such, it is a bit to "reincarnation" like, know what I mean?

/Grin .. Yeah, I got it. I understand.

♦

Jack, I'm sure you didn't mean to start a theological argument, and no doubt you are a fine, caring fellow. I responded because as you are on a thread with an unbeliever (MB) who has uncertainties related to belief, and then you bring up this "regenerated" belief system, as IF the ONLY reason a person doesn't believe is that they CAN'T - as God apparently hasn't first flipped some magical "regeneration" switch - well, I find this VERY dangerous and likely discouraging for one who might be or might eventually be seeking Him. Don't think this seeking and honoring God is possible (pre-salvation), again, see the story of Cornelius. You make it sound as if the ONLY reason a person can't yet believe or understand enough to at least begin positively responding to God, is because God supposedly has not yet regenerated them so that this is possible for them.

Now, no doubt God must work on a person's mind and heart to believe - and He will, IF they, at some point, are THEMSELVES willing to cease resisting, listen, respond and obey to Him as He prompts them - and this process begins WELL before they are saved. But you have NO idea whether or not a person's willfully resistant heart and mind are their ultimate present problem, as opposed to asserting that the "reason" is that God has not yet made this possible for them. As it is a very good likelihood that an unbeliever has been given ALL they require to go further towards knowing and understanding God but their TRUE current problem is that THEY have remained UNWILLING and resistant in heart and mind when that is the opposite of what God's heart desires for them. So, often, the unbeliver is the problem - he has more than enough understanding and information to at least be willing to respond to God as he's been enabled to. But a persistently resistant unsaved person is often his own and only remaining problem - certainly it's not because God hasn't yet flipped some "magic switch." This is exactly what Romans 1 tells us - the hearts and minds of unbelievers are UNWILLING to respond to even what they've already been "clearly" made aware of. And it is why they are without excuse. THEY chose to not listen, to avoid, to believe in lies. It's certainly not that God doesn't allow and hasn't yet provided ALL an opportunity to choose to obey Him. The problem isn't Him, it's THEM!

Jack, if you are honest with an unbeliever, you must admit that your Calvinist beliefs inform you that you have NO idea whether God has EVER wanted that person to be saved - a very different issue than you merely not knowing whether a person WILL ever be saved. Do you not agree that Calvinism teaches that God NEVER gives any CHOICE that a man can freely utilize that will lead to His salvation, that God chooses FOR him as to whether or not that man will end up in eternal punishment or eternal bliss, and that this preceded and had absolutely nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of a man's future RESPONSE to some choice (acceptance or rejection) concerning God ? This belief that God DESIRES and CAUSES some to believe and that others He NEVER meant, desired or ever gave them the ability to seek Him - and ONLY because HE didn't want them to - that HE trapped them in eternal unbelief only because that was always His desire for them - that, my friend, is a terrible distortion of the Gospel message and is highly likely to be a roadblock for an unbeliever hearing such to believe. And yet that is what Five Point Calvinism ultimately teaches. One can play with words and cherrypick Scriptures all day long, but ultimately, that is the reality of what Calivinsm - IF true - would mean.

Seriously, what were Paul and Peter doing trying to PERSUADE with reason and arguments concerning Christ if God first must regenerate a person - meaning that their belief would have needed no human persuasive effort and would be automatic. Notice Paul was NOT merely giving unbelieving pagans a presentation of the Gospel. Does Paul's reasoning and logic strategy not suggest that a person COULD respond, that they DID have the ability to understand and be persuaded, and that these persuasive arguments were designed to help them to make a decision - AS IF they COULD make such a decision. If not, what was their point?

I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who cares:http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-But-Free-B ... n+But+Free

This is exactly what Romans 1 tells us - the hearts and minds of unbelievers are UNWILLING to respond to even what they've already been "clearly" made aware of. And it is why they are without excuse. THEY chose to not listen, to avoid, to believe in lies.

I see this sort of thing a lot. Either said to me directly, or here, you guys talking among yourselves, reinforcing your beliefs.

There are about a billion people in China being described this way.

Some few more elsewhere.

In general, I dont think Christians are even capable of understanding how an atheist thinks, less still qualified to say why, or what is in their hearts.

I know its a quote from the Bible, and to a Christian, the Bible is True. So such things can be said as unassailable Truth.

And so it must be that I believe in "lies", and otherwise exercise my mind in base and ignoble ways.

Thanks, guys, way to go. Win over a few more to want to be like you.

Audie wrote:

This is exactly what Romans 1 tells us - the hearts and minds of unbelievers are UNWILLING to respond to even what they've already been "clearly" made aware of. And it is why they are without excuse. THEY chose to not listen, to avoid, to believe in lies.

I see this sort of thing a lot. Either said to me directly, or here, you guys talking among yourselves, reinforcing your beliefs.

There are about a billion people in China being described this way.

Some few more elsewhere.

In general, I dont think Christians are even capable of understanding how an atheist thinks, less still qualified to say why, or what is in their hearts.

I know its a quote from the Bible, and to a Christian, the Bible is True. So such things can be said as unassailable Truth.

And so it must be that I believe in "lies", and otherwise exercise my mind in base and ignoble ways.

Thanks, guys, way to go. Win over a few more to want to be like you.

Having been an former atheist, I can say atheist are not capable of understanding how an Christian thinks, and less still qualified to say why, or what is in their hearts...

Yet, are you, Audie, not claiming a sense of moral superiority here? Wise in your own eyes as the Romans passage cites. Have you ever gave this much thought: If there is nothing to hold us accountable other than evolutionary relativistic morality, would not your truth claim just made above be moot - holding no merit whatsoever?

The Romans Chapter One cited deals with a subject that all people everywhere can see God's work of creation as his finger prints are all over it and despite this, people still choose to ignore the evidence and go about doing whatever they want too.

That is truth, Audie, you may not like the truth - but it is there in each sunset and sunrise. In each flower, tree, plant, insect, and animal. God's handiwork is there as well as our screwing it all up by how we choose to freely live our lives. That is the message of Romans chapter one, Audie.
-
-
-

Audie, you - at least at this point in your life - may not realize you are believing in lies. In fact, likely much the opposite. But there are truths and untruths, and what we believe will not change whether something is true or not, as it either is or is not true. I'm not asserting that atheists are necessarily deliberately and consciously trying to convince themselves to believe lies, often, even when they have bought into lies. That's exactly what clever lies are designed to do - conceal the truth. No, it's not as if every atheist is determined to seek out lies to embrace as truth. But when they are embracing things false that they do not realize are so, doesn't change the fact that they have indeed embraced a lie.

I can guarantee that there are former atheists on this site, and that they DO well understand where you are coming from. As a very young man, I myself flirted with agnosticism.

Some former atheists here might pipe up?

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:

This is exactly what Romans 1 tells us - the hearts and minds of unbelievers are UNWILLING to respond to even what they've already been "clearly" made aware of. And it is why they are without excuse. THEY chose to not listen, to avoid, to believe in lies.

I see this sort of thing a lot. Either said to me directly, or here, you guys talking among yourselves, reinforcing your beliefs.

There are about a billion people in China being described this way.

Some few more elsewhere.

In general, I dont think Christians are even capable of understanding how an atheist thinks, less still qualified to say why, or what is in their hearts.

I know its a quote from the Bible, and to a Christian, the Bible is True. So such things can be said as unassailable Truth.

And so it must be that I believe in "lies", and otherwise exercise my mind in base and ignoble ways.

Thanks, guys, way to go. Win over a few more to want to be like you.

Having been an former atheist, I can say atheist are not capable of understanding how an Christian thinks, and less still qualified to say why, or what is in their hearts...

Yet, are you, Audie, not claiming a sense of moral superiority here? Wise in your own eyes as the Romans passage cites. Have you ever gave this much thought: If there is nothing to hold us accountable other than evolutionary relativistic morality, would not your truth claim just made above be moot - holding no merit whatsoever?

The Romans Chapter One cited deals with a subject that all people everywhere can see God's work of creation as his finger prints are all over it and despite this, people still choose to ignore the evidence and go about doing whatever they want too.

That is truth, Audie, you may not like the truth - but it is there in each sunset and sunrise. In each flower, tree, plant, insect, and animal. God's handiwork is there as well as our screwing it all up by how we choose to freely live our lives. That is the message of Romans chapter one, Audie.
-
-
-

A former atheist, or one from a religious background who had doubts for a while?

If you were not raised in a non religious home, you do not get the idea.

Changing a word, then turning my statement back on me fails to address it. Thats fine, so long as you realize that.

I make no claim of superiority, moral or otherwise, what ever made you think I did?

evolutionary relativistic morality,? Never heard of it. But if you wish to discuss morality apart from god, that is a different topic.

As for truth claim, Im not the one claiming Truth.

If you see God in creation, that is fine. Maybe you do. Some see Gods wrath in the lightning or in a tsunami. Do you? I was walking with another girl on campus, she picked up a leaf she said god had made in tree parts to represent the Trinity. Did he?

If you wish to discuss whether God can be detected or proven by looking at his works, you will want to note that he is inordinately fond of beetles.

My topic, tho, was this..And so it must be that I believe in "lies", and otherwise exercise my mind in base and ignoble ways.

And that being told that does somehow not make me want to be like you guys.

If you want to address that, that was my topic.

Philip wrote:

Audie, you - at least at this point in your life - may not realize you are believing in lies. In fact, likely much the opposite. But there are truths and untruths, and what we believe will not change whether something is true or not

Im sure we all believe things taht are not actually so. If you are going to say I believe in lies, you better identify them.

I wonder if you really meant to say the truth of falsity of something wont change what you believe.

, as it either is or is not true. I'm not asserting that atheists are necessarily deliberately and consciously trying to convince themselves to believe lies, often, even when they have bought into lies. That's exactly what clever lies are designed to do - conceal the truth. No, it's not as if every atheist is determined to seek out lies to embrace as truth. But when they are embracing things false that they do not realize are so, doesn't change the fact that they have indeed embraced a lie.

Ok, you are welcome to identify such. its easy for me to spot whoppers that a lot of Christians believe.

I can guarantee that there are former atheists on this site, and that they DO well understand where you are coming from. As a very young man, I myself flirted with agnosticism.
Some former atheists here might pipe up?

There may be. Id also like to hear from them. They will need to be as i said, something other than temporarily fallen away Christians, tho.

Keep in mind what I said, tho, that a Christian such as yourself does not get it, at all, how an an atheist like myself or about a billion other chinese see things.

And this: so it must be that I believe in "lies", and otherwise exercise my mind in base and ignoble ways.

What is your response to that?


ps rats I messed up the quote thing again

In Audie's defense (or defense of atheists more geneally, or at least to encourage Christians to be a little more careful with Scripture), Romans 1 is not talking about atheists, but about polytheists, and idolaters more particularly.

From a Christian perspective, "Unbelievers" are not necessarily atheists, it's just that they have rejected the one True God. Atheists claim there is no/are no God or gods - although I'm suspicious of how many of them truly believe what they claim. Is Satan an unbeliever? Technically, yes - but certainly he's no atheist.

I am former atheist. 25 years. 2 years agnosticism and now 3 years am believer.

I was raised in atheistic home. Father had his views about Christians and they passed on me. Now I realize I had false assumptions. Like Christians being not intelligent, easily falling into believing something untrue. Mentioning this, yes, Audie, seeing your friend picking a leaf and seeing it as a sign from God, well, ... Do you marvel at it? Do you wonder what truth can be there within Christianity if poeple so easily fall into believing something?

I had my views about Christians. But not all were like that. I wanted to meet intelligent and friendly and honest at the same time Christian and dialog with him. Such Christian I met and I was slowly drawn.

I always say: if you are highly intelligent person, find some Christian that would suit your level. And find some that will suite you as a friend too. It is nice tomeet someone similar.

Also, when being atheist, I have not really explored Christianity. I just in fact dismissed it thinking they are wrong.