Do chistians see Atheist as bad people?

Ariana Lang: Very well put.

Eva_Pilot04: Nope, it?s not that bad yet. I think I?ve been right in the middle of every major EU-Canon debate in the past year, and I?ve seen worse. Sometimes.

 

i have nothing but respect for those who have faith, then question it and lose it. you need to know what you're getitng into when you believe. i'd rather have a nonbeliever than someone who believes blindly.

it's like the other day when we were over at our friends house... my mom mentioned that my sister and i like harry potter. the friend's grandmother said "our church doesn't allow harry potter," quickly to be followed by "i wonder why that is..." she seriously didn't know why, she just didn't read it because she was told not to. i'm not trying to turn this into a harry potter debate, i've got my own thread for that but what i'm trying to say is that you need to question, you shouldn't follow blindly. don't wonder why you're told to believe something, find out why. and don't feel bad if you don't 100% agree with everything.

 

History, despite claims to the contrary, is nto a science. it can not be tested or proved, the agreement of multiple sources means it is probably true, but nto an absolute certainty.

History can be called both a science and a craft. However, it is much closer to craft than to science, though it has a little bit of both. That's my view anyway. The important thing to remember is that neither history nor "conventional" (for want of a better term) science can offer absolute proof. In fact, I can't think of any field apart from mathematics where the word "proof" has any meaning at all. In the physical world, absolute certainty doesn't exist.

Into throw cydonia's attempts to say that if one part of the Bible is false then the whole thing is invalidated, despite the fact that the bible is not one work of literatuure but many jammed togeather.

The falsehood of one part of the Bible does not mean the rest of it is false. It simply means the rest of it could be false - i.e. the Bible isn't an inerrant book.

Intellectually dishonest? Perhaps. certainly there is no lab in the world where you could test to see what circumstances might bring a person three days dead back to life. However if you believe in the Christian God, one who can and does work miracles then it is possible. Obviously then you have to test the question of 'is there a God?'

I invite you to try but I doubt it will be proven either way.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative side. The world would be crazy if we believed anything we could not disprove. If I tell you that my hamster spoke to me, the onus is on me to substantiate that claim. Nobody assumes that it happened because there is no way for them to disprove it. A lack of opposing evidence is not required in order to rebuff a positive statement. A lack of supporting evidence is all that is sufficient.

Science right now can not explain everything, perhaps one day in the future it will. Perhaps it will explain why objects with mass are attracted to each other. Perhaps it will explain the very existence of life, perhaps it will explain not only how the universe was created, but what caused it to be created,

Perhaps.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. --Albert Einstein

The unexplored areas where Christianity can take refuge grow less numerous. In many once unexplored areas, religion has been shown to be erroneous. The origin of the world/universe and the mechanisms of the weather are two examples. Since so many of the testable elements of religion have been debunked and are now "metaphorical" or explained away, it is possible - even likely - that the untestable elements are equally fallacious.

Until then I belive I know some of the answers. I can not prove them, but I believe nonetheless. Intellectually dishonest? Perhaps. But Perhaps it would be just as intellectually dishonest for you to say I am wrong.

I can say that you are for all intents and purposes wrong because, as I have said before, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative side. That is, unless you would refrain from calling me "wrong" if I claimed, with neither proof nor disproof, that my hamster spoke to me.

No Cydonia, narrow minded is believing there are no explinations for something that aren't your own. narrow minded is refusing to even acknowledge that you might be wrong in something.

And "personal god" fallacies are the epitome of magical thinking. You imagine that the forces around you are trying to communicate with you, have a personality, and can be controlled by you - and you turn these forces into an imaginary God to accomplish these ends. Contary to your statem

 

Ok, I only check these boards once in a while, so I'm going to respond to what people wrote near the beginning.

I'm not trying to preach my views, I'm just stating what the Bible says about us. God cannot have sin in his presence, and humans are sinful. Therefore, we should all be damned (I don't like it, but that's what the Bible says - note my reference to Romans 3). God doesn't want to kill the world, and that is exactly why Jesus died for us. He cleanses our sin so that we can live in the glory of God forever.

Christianity is not a message of condemnation, but of hope. I pray that every one of you will open your hearts and find Jesus.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

As you can see, I love the Book of Romans. It is the most condensed and complete theology in the Bible. You want to know what Christians believe? Read it!

 

With history you have to mostly rely on other peoples accounts. It is impossible to set up tests and run experiments. All you have is data that mostly has already been run through human perception and coloured from various sources.

Also, I have never claimed the Bible is true in every detail. However, I do percieve a difference in a creation myth and the stories as recorded in the New Testament.

As for the rest, I agree, the burden of truth is on the the affirmative side. But then again I'm not trying to prove there is a God. I don't have to prove there is a God, because I believe. It is your certainty in the powers of human understanding that makes you say there isn't one. As for your example, how do I know your Hamster doesn't talk to you, ask him if he's an atheist. I presume it's a he just because I'm self centered and presume all things of unknown sex are male. More seriously if you mantained your unshakable conviction that your hamster did talk to you and I that I could find no evidence stating that hamsters talking was absolutely impossible with listed reasons I would have to allow it was possible, although improbable.

Imaginary forces? What imaginary force caused the Universe to come into being? What imaginary force set up gravity, or magneticism? What imaginary force brought forth life from an improbable brew of chemicals?

Science doesn't explain the world, it just defines it.

Religion provides the details.

 

"Science doesn't explain the world, it just defines it.

Religion provides the details."

Seems to me you have those arranged wrong. Science is the details, religion is the larger picture that adds the human element.

 

Humans are details cydonia.

 

If God is all-powerful then he can forgive us our sins with or without Jesus. Also, if God is all-powerful and all knowing and all good, why does he need to be worshiped? Does he have some self-esteem issues or something, and need to be reassured that he?s been doing a good job?

I hope that every one of you will open your minds and reject the concept of a God who wants sycophants for worshipers.

 

Jesus is also God.

God doesn't need our approval of his actions. My take on the 'made in His image' concept is that we were made in his spiritual image. That said, I feel that the emotional ranges we all share are also present in God. We love to be praised by our peers, and to be built up by them. In the same way, God desires our worship, rather than need it.

I think it would take more of an open mind to believe in God than to only accept those physical things in front of our faces.

 

"God cannot have sin in his presence, and humans are sinful."

If God is everywhere, then He's had sin in His presence since the dawn of man--and if there's something he "cannot" do, then he isn't omnipotent.

 

God cannot have sin in his presence, and humans are sinful. Therefore, we should all be damned (I don't like it, but that's what the Bible says - note my reference to Romans 3).

This is what makes me see Christianity as absurd. God made humans, and he also laid down a set of rules that humans, by their nature, would be unable to keep. What's the point? It almost looks like God set up sin just as an "excuse" to damn us, although that would conflict with his absolute omnipotence.

But the absurdity doesn't end there. Rather than simply recognise that we can't remotely adhere to the rules he knowingly set up for us, he must become a man and be murdered in order to forgive humanity. You'd think that an omnipotent being wouldn't need the "excuse" of killing himself in order to forgive us for breaking the impossible rules he laid down. Again, God doesn't seem to be omnipotent; he seems to need excuses in order to do things. First of all, he must set up inevitable sin in order to damn us for eternity. Then, he changes his mind and must therefore be crucified in order to let us off the hook.

But supposing there's nothing wrong with all this business of a God who must become a man and be killed in order to forgive us. Having done this, the most immense and far-reaching sacrifice in history, he then plays a silly little game with us. He decides that his sacrifice will only be applied to a select few (why he wants to waste it I cannot possibly presume). Therefore, he seeds the world with contradictory religions and says: "Ah, I will grant this sacrifice to people who randomly happen to stumble upon the right faith." He refuses to provide any far-reaching science, medicine or technology, which would be ample evidence for his being a god. He mutes the historical evidence relating to his sacrifice, and he fills the books (Bible) which will supposedly convert people with contradictions, absurdities, inaccuracies and incorrect ideas borne of 1st-century superstitition.

In short, he makes the greatest sacrifice in the history of the universe, and then uses it to play a silly little faith game with us - "My enormous act will be granted to those who, against evidence and reason, stumble on the right truth." You can see why deists have referred to Christianity as "derogatory to the almighty".

I will pick up an analogy I've used before, slightly modified for this context. If someone falls off a cliff, do you purely and simply reach out your hand to help them? Or do you hide your hand so it can only just be seen, and project lots of holographic false hands to confuse the falling person? If he grabs a holographic false hand, and falls, is his falling to the earth his fault, or yours? If he doesn't realise that he's fallen at all until it's too late, does he deserve death on the rocks below (and do you refuse to call the emergency services once he hits the ground)?

With history you have to mostly rely on other peoples accounts. It is impossible to set up tests and run experiments. All you have is data that mostly has already been run through human perception and coloured from various sources.

There are such things as eyewitnesses and primary evidence (written at the time). Jesus can be substantiated with neither.

Imaginary forces? What imaginary force caused the Universe to come into being? What imaginary force set up gravity, or magneticism? What imaginary force brought forth life from an improbable brew of chemicals?

1. That's the promoting principle for deism (the setting up of natural laws) but it says little in favour of theism, which goes much further.

2. Science does not understand everything yet; perhaps it never will (although there are quantum mechanics theories and all sorts that show the Big Bang could have happened spontaneously). However, nothing will be solved by making things up.

3. How did God come into being? You're just putting the problem back a step. You will say

 

from where comes the idea that people will believe the Bible just by reading it?

That's how I became a Christian 7 years ago. I was writing a play set during Jesus' life. The object of the play was to ridicule Christianity for many of the reasons that you said in your post - because I saw it as absurd.

As part of my research I started reading the New Testament, in particular the gospel of John. The more I was reading, the less I cared about the play I was writing and the more what I was reading was coming alive to me. I read John, Acts and Ephesians over the next few weeks and I just knew it was true. Can't explain it any other way. John's gospel showed me the reality and the power of Jesus, Acts showed me what the church should be like, and Ephesians showed me what Christian living was all about.

Throughout this time I had no Christians around me to influence me - just me and my Bible.

I then committed my life to Jesus. All from just reading the Bible.

 

"I then committed my life to Jesus. All from just reading the Bible."

Hmmm... Well Im not gonna watch Star Wars anymore in fear of beliving an a little green muppet and everything he sayes.

 

Darkside,
Reading history is looking through the world in anothers eyes, what they see may not be what you would see if you were there, and yet because you couldn't be, all the evidence you have is tainted by their perception.

And you're right, it is impossible to live up to Gods standards. But it isn't impossible to try to. Isn't striving what being human is all about? We may never discover a way to cure cancer, or to go faster then light, or find a way to make pavement which doesn't get icy(sorry for that I slipped on the ice this morning and I still ache) but does that mean we shouldn't try? In all liklihood history will never remember my name. Or yours. Does that mean it doesn't matter what we do?

Why do you blame God for contradictory religions? Are humans worth so little then as to be unable to screw up without his guidance? I have great faith in humanities ability to screw up. Why does God waste his salvation? I do not know, but I am happy he chose to waste it on humans and give us the chance of something better.

I can not claim to know all the answers, but I would submit that God does not waste his salvation, it is granted to everyone, but there are those who refuse to see it, or see it and refuse to accept.

Even if God provided what you might consider proof, there are still those who would not believe.

If you want me to answer for why God does the things he does, you know I can not, But I disagree with your analogy. But let me state what I percieve you meaning of it to be. Humanity is the person falling, the holographic hands to be false religions and the person standing by doing nothing to be God, correct?

I would insead offer this. humanity is Blind walking around on a plataue. The voice of God is a soft whisper telling them where to go to stay away from the edge. And yet somone overloud and unwilling to listen falls off, is it Gods fault? Do not blame God if you refuse to listen to his word. Do not blame God for not shouting to be heard over your own voice.

As for how God came into being. You are assuming that God would be limited by restrictions of the Universe, and yet, if he created it, he coulld not be. A circular argument I know but that is the best I can do, no theologian am I. Before you harp on that please remember I am not asking you to explain current scientific theories on the origin.

Science yields truth and results? I disagree, from the scientist I've talked to all it yields are more questions.

As for your Bible question, I'll leave that to others to answer since they would be better suited, but if I may take a stab at your 'Why would God care about humans' point. Humans are not complete of themselves, you needn't take my word for, just look around. How many truely happy people do you see sitting in the corner of the room? And yet how many people go over and talk to that person, try to help? Try to make them happy? As I see it we are not complete, and God is trying to help us become complete with him.

<sigh> i know that probably makes little sense but I'm still blindly groping along the Platrua, uncomfortably aware that the edge is close then I'd like.

If you want we can take this up over email PM or AIM and so keep from railroading this discussion away from it's intended purpose.

And once again, I do not think Atheist are bad people, except those who make snide remarks about religion because they feel they are inately superior to anyone who would believe in such an obvious lie.

 

Paranorina, I don't think that's a problem. Yoda isn't a real being who knows everything. God is. If you really want to come to know God, He will reveal Himself to you. If you truly want to believe everything that little green muppet says, well then, you can. But I doubt it will really help you or anyone else around you.


Grand_Moff_Monkey, your testimony is very encouraging. You sound like Paul. Started off persecuting Christ, ended up following Him. Very cool.


D_S: "This is what makes me see Christianity as absurd. God made humans, and he also laid down a set of rules that humans, by their nature, would be unable to keep. What's the point? It almost looks like God set up sin just as an "excuse" to damn us, although that would conflict with his absolute omnipotence.

But the absurdity doesn't end there. Rather than simply recognise that we can't remotely adhere to the rules he knowingly set up for us, he must become a man and be murdered in order to forgive humanity. You'd think that an omnipotent being wouldn't need the "excuse" of killing himself in order to forgive us for breaking the impossible rules he laid down. Again, God doesn't seem to be omnipotent; he seems to need excuses in order to do things. First of all, he must set up inevitable sin in order to damn us for eternity. Then, he changes his mind and must therefore be crucified in order to let us off the hook."


You describe some of those occurences in a totally different way the Bible does, and God's motives totally different as well. But to answer the core confusion there. Perhaps God just wanted to show mercy to those who would accept Him, and justice to those who would reject Him. He set up the rules that we might know we aren't God. Those rules condemned our sin, even stimulated it, so that we might know we aren't God. We don't have the power and wisdom God does, and there would be great trouble if everyone walking around thought they were equal to God. 'Course, many people do walk around thinking that anyway, which is why they feel so guilty when someone shows them something from the Bible. It condemns them. And they know it. Anyway, the rules showed that we were sinful and needed God, and the sacrifice of Jesus provided the way our of condemnation, and back into a full relationship with God.


"I will pick up an analogy I've used before, slightly modified for this context. If someone falls off a cliff, do you purely and simply reach out your hand to help them? Or do you hide your hand so it can only just be seen, and project lots of holographic false hands to confuse the falling person? If he grabs a holographic false hand, and falls, is his falling to the earth his fault, or yours? If he doesn't realise that he's fallen at all until it's too late, does he deserve death on the rocks below (and do you refuse to call the emergency services once he hits the ground)?"


Sorry, God didn't create any "holographic 'hands'". These were thought up by humans via free will. Don't blame God, blame man for passing down the wrong material to future generations, out of rebellion.


"2. Science does not understand everything yet; perhaps it never will (although there are quantum mechanics theories and all sorts that show the Big Bang could have happened spontaneously). However, nothing will be solved by making things up."


I agree. But the Bible wasn't made up by us to solve things. It was shown to us by God. Your little theories were "made up" to explain away a King. The King of kings, to be exact.


"3. How did God come into being? You're just putting the problem back a step. You will say he is eternal and unchaging, the very fabric of existence - but why not say that about the laws of physics in the first place?"


Because everything in this physical universe has a beginning and an end(time). The laws of physics had to have a beginning. God didn't. He was the One who created time.


"It attempts to both explain and define. Science searches for information through rational means."[

 

"It almost seems as if God set up sin as an 'excuse' to damn us"


No...according to the Bible, we didn't start out sinning and God going "Ha ha ha -- let's see how many I can be merciful too. And the rest? Send them all to Hell! Bah!" We started out sinless, perfect, and we screwed ourselves. That makes God's mercy necessary. Because we are no longer perfect.

 

The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your ****ing mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.
-- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

 

The essence of Christianity is told us in the gospels. Man can't get to heaven on his own. Be it by knowledge, good works, or any other way.


Only by the life God provides can we enter heaven(have eternal life). In the Garden of Eden the tree of life symbolized the life that God gives. The life that Jesus gave us through His death.


Adam and Eve wanted to reach God through knowledge. If they had just eaten from the tree of life that God provided, they would have had life. Eating from the other tree was an act of rebellion. You rebel against life, you get death.

 

"Don't blame God, blame man for passing down the wrong material to future generations, out of rebellion."

Blame men today for what their ancestors did? How Biblical of you.

 

I will pick up an analogy I've used before, slightly modified for this context. If someone falls off a cliff, do you purely and simply reach out your hand to help them? Or do you hide your hand so it can only just be seen, and project lots of holographic false hands to confuse the falling person? If he grabs a holographic false hand, and falls, is his falling to the earth his fault, or yours? If he doesn't realise that he's fallen at all until it's too late, does he deserve death on the rocks below (and do you refuse to call the emergency services once he hits the ground)?

my beliefs are a bit different, seeing as i don't believe athiests go to hell. my version of the analogy would go something like:

if a person falls off a cliff, you could give them your hand, or you could give them some rope. in fact, give them many ropes and let them chose... some may have knots to make the climbing easier, some may have hooks to hook yourself on, and some may be just simple ropes. granted, it's easier to climb up with a rope made for climbing, but you can make it with a plain rope as well.

my belief is that deeds, rather than faith alone, result in salvation. the different ropes are symbolic of different religions, and the plain rope of no religion. some people prefer structure, but there are people (and many people, at that) who can live perfectly moral lives without an organized religion. religion helps, but it's not the only way.

now there are some people who see the rope, and know that not taking it is a bad idea, but don't take it anyways. and there are some people that will take the rope and, instead of using it to climb, will wrap it around their neck. not much you can do about these people either.

we've been givin the tools (i.e. a conscience) for our own salvation. we can use them well, or ignore that we have them. some people use them better with a religion, any religion. some people abuse the religion and end up hanging themselves with it. some people prefer not having the frills of knots or hooks and just prefer to live life as it comes, without a religion. and some people ignore any resemblence of a conscience and just fall.



i don't know if it made much sense now that i've written it out, but it made sense in my head this isn't meant to spark a discussion about faith vs. deeds (even though we've already got that going on) but instead is meant to translate the analogy into something that goes along with my personal beliefs.

 

Not bad, MaidenLumpé.

 

Gee, I wonder if Ender is bitter?

Re: "Do chistians [sic] see Atheist [sic] as bad people?"

I must say that this is an ill formed question at it's core. It asks us to make a huge generalization/stereotype about a huge population of people.

 

"Blame men today for what their ancestors did? How Biblical of you."


LOL


I shouldn't have said that. The simple truth is, man did change in some areas. All across the world we have cultures with similar myths and stories, but at the same time, these stories are slightly different. It's because we all came from the same ancestors, who passed down truths to their children, who passed these truths down to their children, and so on. Somewhere along the way these people changed the stories around, and added different gods into the mix. Out of rebellion against the Bible God.Isn't it just like us to want something we don't have? The grass is always greener on the other side. Men have changed the truth and distorted it to fit their own desires.


But they aren't to blame for those who accept these "holographic hands". They don't force people to reach out to the "holographic hands", they're just the ones who invented them. The truth is plainly seen. The sins in the Bible are well known sins. I'm not talking the cleanliness codes that the Hebrews were given, but the Ten Commandments and such are just common knowledge. Anyone and everyone with a conscience knows right from wrong. Those who accept Jesus when they hear are the ones that would "accept" Him without hearing. The pharisees once asked Jesus how to have eternal life. He said to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. So, "holographic hand" or no, we can all get to heaven by faith in Jesus. And you don't need to hear of Him to have faith in Him. No, I'm not saying that those who follow God by a different name will be saved, as most who follow God by a different name don't even follow the God of the Bible. They follow man's idea of God.

 

"They follow man's idea of God."

They follow an idea of God. The Bible is another (actually several)--and who here has the authority to say which idea is right?

Did God write the Bible in lightning? No. Was it written all at once? No. It was written by men from many different eras and philosophies, one piece at a time.

The Koran is said to have been dictated word-for-word from Allah himself (speaking through the prophet Mohammed). The Book of Mormon is said to have been hand-delivered by an angel. Supporters of the Bible claim that its authors each had an episode of divine inspiration, and wrote as if possessed.

What do these claims all have in common? A complete lack of proof. How is one claim better than another?

 

I guess that's a conclusion you have to come to on your own.


I've read the book of Mormon and I have to say, it didn't really do anything for me. It was like a sequal to a movie that was already good enough the way it was. That's just my opinion. The Koran, well, I haven't really had a chance to read from it yet, but even if I did, it would speak of the same God I already follow, just with a lot of added stuff that really don't seem to cleanse you. Just a bunch of actions (again just my opinion).


The Bible, IMO, was written much differently than any other religious text. It seems to be inspired by God. It is always changing, It's living.


But again, this is a conclusion you have to come to on your own. Read some of the NT though. I've noticed that you hunt down the things that make God look bad in the OT, but haven't really posted much on the NT. If you really want to know why the Bible is different, read the NT. It will give you a much wider view of the OT.