Atheists: Does anything attract you to Christianity?

[Nessa]

Who did He offend and how...

Religious leaders?
...and by simply saying Who He was???

Yes Jesus offends, the gospel he stands for offends. Now that should be obvious
To say Jesus should obviously be the most appealing person to anyone is just not true.
Obvious to who?

Its a very one sided view of Jesus and is rather like saying obviously everyone should be a christian. It's not as simple as that.

[Kenny]

.

Ken, what do you make of this quote?

''There are different definitions for proof. There are proofs in mathematics and logic. There is proof that you love someone. Proof is sometimes based on evidence, reasoning, certification, facts, or reasonable demonstration of the truth, but to prove that a historical figure existed is very difficult. Basically, the best we can do is provide evidence and leave it up to the individual to consider whether or not the evidence is sufficient.''

I agree!

Ken

[B. W.]

Psst: Choosing to believe is choosing self-deception.

Do you believe in yourself then, Audie?
-
-
-

Odd q. Why would you ask that?

Because you have faith, Audie...
-
-
-

[Kurieuo]

Who did He offend and how...

Religious leaders?
...and by simply saying Who He was???

He was driving public sentiments against the religious leaders of the day. Constantly showing them up in the public square. People were loving Jesus, over and against the religious authorities who formed the Sanhedrin.

Finally, Jesus purposefully fashioned a whip to drive out the animals in the temple, overturning their tables of commerce and what-not. Now he's really hitting them where it hurts -- their hip pocket, wealth.

Jesus had to be brought in check, or people, Jewish people, wouldn't respect the authority of the Sanhedrin who were being made into a joke. These were the religious authorities using their positions of authority to bring Jesus down. And they targeted who people claimed Him the be, the Messiah prophesied who would set the people free.

Then in Jesus' death, the veil in the temple was torn in two. No longer would such be responsible for the sin of the people. Any further real use of the template and priests was now replaced by Jesus. And as Jesus prophesied (Matt 24:2), the Jewish temple was eventually destroyed 70AD.

Edit: I see you were replying to Nessa, but oh well... above is now a fuller response to your questions treated on their own.

[Audie]

Psst: Choosing to believe is choosing self-deception.

Do you believe in yourself then, Audie?
-
-
-

Odd q. Why would you ask that?

Because you have faith, Audie...
-
-
-

You have equivocation game

[zacchaeus]

Kur, you seemingly make Jesus sound like a brute? Is this the case... His righteous indignation was holy, pure, and with great cause. Folks trying to make a quick buck off of sacred ground and pervert the word... What part of that is offensive? If you come into my house and start selling all that I own and I come home and kick you out- you'd paint me as offensive? Not sure I understand this logic lol. May just be misreading your thoughts.

Nes, again- what did Jesus do to be offensive??? Say Who He was, or claim Who He claimed to be??? Jesus was sane, peaceful, wise beyond His flesh, so was it what He stood for or Who He was that was offensive? Was it His character and moral standing, or simply His self-proclamation? Who in their right mind willfully dies for a lie... Okay boys the gig is up, I'm not who I said I was- and then they really have reason to kill Him- lying!!! But He didn't!!!

No more than telling someone we're Christians should be offensive- except to maybe you and few others, but why? I don't find atheism offensive, I simply find it inaccurate and don't agree with it- but not offensive.

And if I went and told an officer right now I'm a liar, thief, burglar, etc. At best He'll write a report, search for evidence, and follow up- he's not going to charge me just for 'saying' I am this or that.

[Storyteller]

Ken...

do you actually want to believe in God?

My view is a bit closer to Audie's view on the issue where as I don't believe I choose what I believe. For me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. While true; a person can choose to listen evidence that supports his agenda and he can choose to ignore evidence that may refute it, but he is still going with the evidence he receives even though he has control over what he receives. Hope that makes sense.

Ken

Kind of. I think.

If you heard God, let`s say just for a moment, you actually hear the voice of God. He tells you it is God. Would you then think, okay God is real, He is there. Or, would you think you were going mad, hearing voices?

There is a lot of evidence out there Ken. The resurrection being the biggest. I read Who Moved the Stone a while ago, and from memory the author was a lawyer (and an atheist) who wanted to treat the resurrection as he would a trial. He spent years researching it, gathering evidence for and against it. His conclusion? That the resurrection must have happened.

Now I am talking personally here.
I see so much evidence of my Creator that I cannot believe that we weren`t created by God. I see no evidence we weren`t. All the evidence of our existence points me towards God. Why do I feel that way, yet you don`t? It has to be choice doesn`t it?

[Storyteller]

Kur, you seemingly make Jesus sound like a brute? Is this the case... His righteous indignation was holy, pure, and with great cause. Folks trying to make a quick buck off of sacred ground and pervert the word... What part of that is offensive? I think the priests at the temple found it offensive. I`m not sure that the priests considered the temple as the home of God though don`t quote me on that.If you come into my house and start selling all that I own and I come home and kick you out- you'd paint me as offensive? Not sure I understand this logic lol. May just be misreading your thoughts.

Nes, again- what did Jesus do to be offensive??? Say Who He was, or claim Who He claimed to be??? Yes. To some that was offensive, it was the most offensive thing He could have said. Think treason.Jesus was sane, peaceful, wise beyond His flesh, so was it what He stood for or Who He was that was offensive? Was it His character and moral standing, or simply His self-proclamation? All of those.Who in their right mind willfully dies for a lie... Okay boys the gig is up, I'm not who I said I was- and then they really have reason to kill Him- lying!!! But He didn't!!!

No more than telling someone we're Christians should be offensive- except to maybe you and few others, but why? I don't find atheism offensive, I simply find it inaccurate and don't agree with it- but not offensive.Different people find different things offensive. Some people, for instance, may be offended if two gay men kissed in public. I wouldn`t but you might, and just because I don`t I can`t assume you won`t either.

And if I went and told an officer right now I'm a liar, thief, burglar, etc. At best He'll write a report, search for evidence, and follow up- he's not going to charge me just for 'saying' I am this or that.But Christ was claiming to be he Son of God. That`s a little different to saying you`re a liar, thief etc.

[PaulSacramento]

Our local little "big bang" may be but one of an infinite number of them.

The "Big Bang" was what set in motion/expanded the UNIVERSE, not our solar system or galaxy.
By definition, it was the beginning of our universe so there were no others.

Suture self, as the doctor kit would put it. But I didnt say "solar system" or something so dimwitted as that.

Define away, our universe, as we parochially like to term it, may be one of an infinite number of such.

Any evidence of that?
No one takes the whole "multiverse" thing seriously, since there is ZERO evidence for it.

Maybe you should reconsider that.

As you can tell by my posts, there is no evidence for the multiple universes.
There is evidence that MAY lead to that view, IF the evidence is NOT explained by other means and IF that evidence is what they think it MAYbe.
In short, there is no evidence for multiple universes.
BUT IF the one pieces of evidence we have that MAY be "associated" with what we THINK might be evidence for another universe that MAY have been created by the SAME Big Bang event, it still means that the event itself, the Big Bang, is NOT explained and it still does NOT tell us if the natural laws of THIS universe do NOT apply to any other.

It also would mean that the bible, once again, got there before science.

[PaulSacramento]

Ken...

do you actually want to believe in God?

My view is a bit closer to Audie's view on the issue where as I don't believe I choose what I believe. For me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. While true; a person can choose to listen evidence that supports his agenda and he can choose to ignore evidence that may refute it, but he is still going with the evidence he receives even though he has control over what he receives. Hope that makes sense.

Ken

No Ken, you are misunderstanding what choosing to believe means.
Either you choose what to believe or don't believe in ( based on evidence, reasoning, personal experience, etc) or you are saying that you have NO CHOICE in what to believe or don't.
So which is it?

[Audie]

The "Big Bang" was what set in motion/expanded the UNIVERSE, not our solar system or galaxy.
By definition, it was the beginning of our universe so there were no others.

Suture self, as the doctor kit would put it. But I didnt say "solar system" or something so dimwitted as that.

Define away, our universe, as we parochially like to term it, may be one of an infinite number of such.

Any evidence of that?
No one takes the whole "multiverse" thing seriously, since there is ZERO evidence for it.

Maybe you should reconsider that.

As you can tell by my posts, there is no evidence for the multiple universes.
There is evidence that MAY lead to that view, IF the evidence is NOT explained by other means and IF that evidence is what they think it MAYbe.
In short, there is no evidence for multiple universes.
BUT IF the one pieces of evidence we have that MAY be "associated" with what we THINK might be evidence for another universe that MAY have been created by the SAME Big Bang event, it still means that the event itself, the Big Bang, is NOT explained and it still does NOT tell us if the natural laws of THIS universe do NOT apply to any other.

It also would mean that the bible, once again, got there before science.

I can tell from your posts that you are dead set against multiverse, and for the bible.

Geology and biology finally freed themselves from interference from the church, as has astronomy. There is always rearguard action but its not taken seriously outside of those parts of the church.

There is evidence for god but not multiverse? Multiple yardsticks for different applications?

Every religion "got there first". Exp when the vague generalities can be fluffed up with hindisight.

[PaulSacramento]

Suture self, as the doctor kit would put it. But I didnt say "solar system" or something so dimwitted as that.

Define away, our universe, as we parochially like to term it, may be one of an infinite number of such.

Any evidence of that?
No one takes the whole "multiverse" thing seriously, since there is ZERO evidence for it.

Maybe you should reconsider that.

As you can tell by my posts, there is no evidence for the multiple universes.
There is evidence that MAY lead to that view, IF the evidence is NOT explained by other means and IF that evidence is what they think it MAYbe.
In short, there is no evidence for multiple universes.
BUT IF the one pieces of evidence we have that MAY be "associated" with what we THINK might be evidence for another universe that MAY have been created by the SAME Big Bang event, it still means that the event itself, the Big Bang, is NOT explained and it still does NOT tell us if the natural laws of THIS universe do NOT apply to any other.

It also would mean that the bible, once again, got there before science.

I can tell from your posts that you are dead set against multiverse, and for the bible.

Geology and biology finally freed themselves from interference from the church, as has astronomy. There is always rearguard action but its not taken seriously outside of those parts of the church.

There is evidence for god but not multiverse? Multiple yardsticks for different applications?

Every religion "got there first". Exp when the vague generalities can be fluffed up with hindisight.

No, you can't tell that from my posts because I said I was totally OK with a multiple universe since it would NOT contradict the bible BUT would actually give validity to what the bible clearly states is a different reality from ours.
As someone that loves science and supports it, I simply do not like science made to say what it simply does NOT say.
And as of right now, there is no evidence for a multiple universe.
Again, IF there was and if we find proof that one exists, all that would do ( biblically speaking) is show that the writers of the bible believed there was another "universe" besides this one MILLENNIUMS before modern science did.

By the way, I am not "for the bible" when it comes to science at all, far from it.
The Bible is not a science book or makes scientific statements as we know them.
I am for science, having a degree in Mechanical Engineering, science is part of my every day life.
I support it 100%.
I just don't happen to support all scientists that make claims without evidence.

[zacchaeus]

Of course it's no science book... Yet science confirms Scripture!!!

[zacchaeus]

Story, true... Theif etc may not be equivalent but the point is valid. It's prob more accurate if I would of used race, black white etc.

The only way Jesus is offensive is if He goes against the popular norm... And HE does!!! But its all for the better, His morality betters society. Unfortunately today we are modern day S&G. (Worse). Jesus is only offensive if you 'choose' to receive Him that way. It's like new curriculum that betters our children's education , if its offensive its only because 1)we don't understand it 2)its new and we don't know how to do it (we like the old way we already know, and we're not ready nor willing to give it up yet).

[Storyteller]

Story, true... Theif etc may not be equivalent but the point is valid. It's prob more accurate if I would of used race, black white etc.

The only way Jesus is offensive is if He goes against the popular norm... And HE does!!! But its all for the better, His morality betters society. Unfortunately today we are modern day S&G. (Worse). Jesus is only offensive if you 'choose' to receive Him that way. It's like new curriculum that betters our children's education , if its offensive its only because 1)we don't understand it 2)its new and we don't know how to do it (we like the old way we already know, and we're not ready nor willing to give it up yet).

It seemed you were implying that Christ isn`t/wasn`t offensive. I was just trying to explain why some may have found Him that way.
I don`t find Christ offensive in any way, shape or form and I don`t think any Christian would but that doesn`t mean that everyone won`t.