Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.16.2006 /
TX has been a faithful contributor to this conversation.
In another set of comments betwen TX and Nutrideath I rush-read some comments I found upsetting and posted my own comments saying something like “we don;t talk that way to each other here”
I was out of place and must have misread the comments for which I am sorry.
TX please forgive me and continue to contribute to this rich dilaog.
Comment by: TXatheist
1Jim,
Apology fully accepted and I have to be up front. My conscience has been eating at me very heavily. I didn’t want to come across as disrespectful to you nor as a victim just whining that we atheists always get the short end of the stick. Jim, you’ve got true courage when you can make an apology a blog topic. For that I thank you.
Comment by: Ir
2TXatheist, I’m very impressed with how you’ve conducted yourself here since you were unfortunately misconstrued and then insulted yesterday.
I’m very glad you spoke up and pointed out that Jim’s comment was unfair. If you hadn’t, would I have got around to mentioning it? I’m not sure I would and that bothers me, about myself. It bothers me that no-one else spoke up and said it was unfair.
I didn’t necessarily agree with everything you said in your post to Jim, but I’m still glad you posted the way you did because it helps me understand what it is like for atheists to live in a society where they are continually misunderstood and treated with unfair bias. It reminds me how important it is for non-atheists who care not to do the same, even by accident.
Jim wrote yesterday “reality lies at the intersection of opposites”. Jim, that may be true, but I’ve been thinking since yesterday afternoon and evening that reality lies, well - here. Right here at the point where human beings are making the choice between self and other. “Do I give, or do I take, here?”
I read a book with nine principles for living (sorry, TXatheist, it was Christian but it had some good ideas in it). One of them was - if you treat others a little bit better than they deserve, the world will be a better place.
Lastly - I like Nutrideath and I’m glad he/she is one of the regulars here, and I expect he regrets the moment when he hit the submit button on one of his posts yesterday. Having said that, I can’t help thinking there’s an embarrassing irony in the fact that the person who posted the insult to TXatheist is the person who has pushed Biblical principles the most on this blog. What does that say about the value of knowing the Bible backwards, forwards, inside-out and upside-down? Quoting a sermon I listened to from that church in Texas again “John wrote that it’s no good saying you love God if you don’t love people. And actually, John said it more strongly than that!”
Comment by: Ir
3Jim, I should have said, THANK YOU for apologizing to TXatheist and asking him to stay. Please excuse me for omitting to say that in my other post.
Comment by: TXatheist
4Ir,
I’m blushing:) My mom would be proud of what you said of me and that gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside. Don’t be sorry about reading xian material, remember I like and admire Spong and his works.
Comment by: Ir
5TXatheist, since your mom knows you way better than me I expect she already has lots of reasons to be proud of you. But I’m happy to provide more :) - and I meant everything I said.
I’m glad you’re still here because imo the non-atheists here seem to be listening to you and the other atheists a little more than I’ve observed in other Internet places where atheists and non-atheists go ‘head to head’.
I was teasing you a little about that book being Christian, but I forgot to put the smile face after it to show that. I know you like and admire Spong (I do too). But even if you didn’t, I think of you as a person who evaluates concepts on their own merits rather than a person who accepts or rejects ocncepts solely because of who suggested them.
Comment by: Ron
6Good morning,
I am very impressed by the fortitued that I see here. It reminds me of a quote I read from R.D. Laing in his book “The Politics of Experience”
I have to quote so many others because I am not smart enough myself to come up with this stuff, I just have to remember it.
Comment by: Nutrideath
7Well, I guess everyone’s wondering if I’m going to post anything here.
And since I noticed this blog topic, so have I… Well, here goes:
Jim, nice apology. Although, I don’t see why you needed to apologize at all.
Tx & I had a spat, we worked it out, & got over it (or so I thought). But then, you told us “we don’t talk to each other like that.” I didn’t respond because I thought you were completely right. Tx however got all bent out of shape, posted a little bit of flame, and so you apologize. Well, that’s your prerogative.
And now I look like the really bad guy. Ir has all but hung a big sign around my neck reading “Caution: Hateful Bible-Thumping Hypocrite.” I already apologized to Tx, & I meant what I said. But now I feel like I’ve got to justify myself.
But Ir is right though. I broke one of my own biggest personal rules: I attacked someone with the Bible. I think Ir got upset because I said Tx was childish, but in my mind that pales in comparison to using the Bible like a club. For that, yes — I’m very embarrassed.
He just got under my skin. We both evidently have the same hot button (Bible prophecy), it just sends us in opposite directions. He attacked something near & dear to my heart, because it’s something near & dear to his own. I lashed back, & we both apologized to each other. So now why the big hullabaloo?
Jim, I know you don’t want this site to become an atheist-bashing site. And I didn’t mean to drag it in that direction. That was never my intention. If you reread my posts, you’ll notice that I was aiming at Tx specifically (however much I shouldn’t have been), not at atheism.
Comment by: TXatheist
8Nutrideath,
I have a million things in my head right now about this. What do you want me to say? I can’t say that calling me 10 was cool and we both know that. I completely accepted your apology and even joked I was 9 years old about it. So here is the best I can come up with. When you post I honestly think you come across as if your statements on religion are factual. I don’t doubt that you believe but saying prophecy happened and god wants this and that or god said this and that is way over the line of you believing in god and speaking for what god wants. That’s my opinion and I hope it comes across with the utmost respect and intention.
Comment by: Stephan
9Let’s not escalate this again. The two of you will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Nutrideath, you cannot use the Bible to prove prophecy, because TX does not believe the Bible. He won’t agree no matter how loudly you say it.
I think we all need to agree that our opinions are finite and limited and quite possibly very wrong. I don’t get that feeling from either of you in some of your posts, and you react even more strongly to each other because of your certainly.
Let’s all back off and “meditate” before hitting that submit button.
Comment by: Ir
10Nutrideath, I don’t want to beat this to death but I do want to understand your position because I don’t want to be unfair to you. I don’t like taking sides and perhaps it seems like I have been.
So if I may ask this: you said TXatheist attacked what was near and dear to your heart: are you referring to the Bible?
When I read the exchanges yesterday this is what I saw: Nutrideath insults TXatheist. TXatheist has not and does not insult Nutrideath. And so, when Jim wrote to both of you “we don’t speak to each other that way” I saw that as unfair because I only saw one of you insult the other.
So, I thought it was appropriate for Jim to apologize to TXatheist for implying he had been equally insulting to you as you were to him.
Evidently you do see some equal insult and I’m trying to understand what that was.
I want this to be a learning experience, that’s why. I think there’s more potential for that in looking at what happened yesterday afternoon than in all the endless back-and-forth about who has ‘the truth’.
Why are you so anxious to have it over and done with? Isn’t the way we relate to other people central to everything?
Comment by: TXatheist
11Stephan,
I’m not going to allow it again. There is no prophecy in the bible that happened concretely. There are vague comparisons but that’s it. When people say the bible fulfilled prophecy accurately I say bull…. You’re wrong it didn’t. I’m fine with Nutrideath but not the idea of fulfilled prophecy he presented and you now present.
Comment by: Ir
12TXatheist, I hope that you won’t have to argue your position because most people will understand why Jim apologized to you, even if Nutrideath doesn’t.
Comment by: Stephan
13TX, the problem I have with some of your statements is that you fail to say “In my opinion”. You may not believe that prophecy has ever been fulfilled, but that is really only your opinion. You can’t prove it never happened, and I can’t prove that it did. I would like to see a little less certainty in your posts.
Comment by: TXatheist
14Stephan,
When something is opinion I will honestly do my best to say that or use imo for short. When someone says god said this and a prophecy happened I want facts to show it, otherwise it is not their opinion but , but that they are misinformed. Do you see the difference?
Comment by: Ir
15I appreciate that, TXatheist. I definitely prefer when people can remember to say that. I see that you prefer it when Christians remember to say it :)
Comment by: Winn
16So TX,
This line of argument seems to go both ways. If I say the X is a prophecy and Y is its fulfillment, you say that I have to prove Y as the result of X.
Would it be fair to say that if you believed that Y is not the result of X then you should have to prove that it is not.
Doesn’t the proof thingy work both ways? If one states that X and Y happened and it is opinion, could it follow that when one says Y is not the result of X that that is simply opinion also.
Help me understand!
Stephan, maybe unintentional, but it seems to me that you were close to putting TX into a “fundamentalist” camp. Now there’s an interesting idea. Can atheist be fundamentalist?
Comment by: Stephan
17TX, what I see between you and Nutrideath is that you both tend, at times, to state opinions as unarguable facts. And when one of you does that, the other comes back even stronger until it gets nasty. When you get two people like that on opposite sides they tend to rub each other the wrong way. I believe that is what led to the altercation yesterday. I understand why you come back strongly when someone cites, as fact, something you do not agree with. I do it myself very often (just ask my wife (on second though, please don’t (gotta love those parenthesis (you just have to remember to close them)))).
I would like you to admit that you stating, as fact, that prophecies were never fulfilled is just as wrong as Nutrideath stating, as fact, that they were.
Comment by: Ir
18I think that’s fair; I also think that there are other choices than adding “in my opinion”, such as “based on everything I’ve read” - if someone wants to emphasize what substantiates their opinion.
Comment by: TXatheist
19Winn,
I’ve never heard of a fundamentalists atheist but am I confident in my atheism? Sure. I’ll be open-minded for all right now. Please share one or two concrete prophecies that were fulfilled and factual. I’m all ears:)
Comment by: Ir
20Stephan and Winn, do you agree that it was unfair of Jim to imply that TXatheist and Nutrideath were equally insulting to each other?
I understand you are trying to point out ways in which they both might make it hard to discuss issues with each other. But - specifically referring to yesterday afternoon, are TX, Jim and I the only ones who saw the unfairness of addressing that one comment equally to both as if they’d both been equally insulting to each other?
Well, I have to go out now, so I guess I won’t find out the answer for a while…
Comment by: Nutrideath
21Thanks Stephan, my point exactly.
Ir, as I said in my previous post, the thing “near & dear to my heart” that is a hot-button for both myself and Tx, is Bible prophecy.
I did feel attacked by Tx on that point. (He is continuing to attack it, even in this thread.) Did anybody even bother to look up the scripture I cited at him? To paraphrase, it says not to throw your pearls before swine, because they “will turn and rip you open.” That’s what I meant by saying that he was fulfilling a prophecy in the Bible. I felt like he was on the attack because I had shared a little bit of Bible discussion with him. He latched onto the topic of Bible prophecy, not welcoming a reasonable discussion, but rather as if I was a poor, misguided idiot for believing in it. When I responded that I didn’t want to have an unreasoning argument he reacted as if he’d won some battle. That’s when the “childish” remarks came up.
So, there’s the instant replay. I feel just peachy after rehashing it all. Don’t y’all?
Yes Ir, I’m eager to lay all this to rest. As I said before, I’m embarassed by the whole thing. Its a little ridiculous, & now I’m starting to feel childish too - like we’re standing on the playground yelling at each other.
And Tx, don’t give me that “I try to use imo.” You state things as you see them. As you should. As we all should. Sure, we need consideration & tact & respect. I lost some of that with you yesterday, but I think we’ve buried the hatchet.
But I disagree with the whole “Monstrous Certainty” as the topic was titled (or, rather, meant to be titled :) ) anyway. We should all be certain of our beliefs, or at least striving to get there. Ir made a wonderful defense of that early on in that thread, and I agree wholeheartedly.
If we don’t speak with conviction, why speak at all?
Comment by: Stephan
22TX, I’m not trying to start a debate. I honestly don’t believe I can convince you that any prophecy has been fulfilled. I can only quote the Bible to back it up, and you have already said you do not consider the Bible a relevant source. I’m not asking you to say that any prophecy has been fulfilled. I’ll repeat what I said above:
I would like you to admit that you stating, as fact, that prophecies were never fulfilled is just as wrong as Nutrideath stating, as fact, that they were.
Comment by: Ir
23Yes!
Nutrideath, an advantage of less certainty might be that you don’t feel ripped open when somone disagrees with you, which would make you less tempted to retaliate in kind. What do you think?
Comment by: NCxian
24Folks:
I am getting wierded out by all this and have started not looking forward to looking at this blog. Which I’ve been addicted to for a couple of weeks, so I am sure the folks who depend on me to do other things are happy about that! But I am not happy about it. Maybe this has to be hashed out, though, and my conflict-adverseness is just my problem, not yours.
Comment by: TXatheist
25Not a fact a very vague metaphor!!!
You did not present pearls to me(they are white balls in oysters) and I am no swine(a pig). I didn’t touch Nutrideath so it’s impossible to say I ripped him up. Does anyone understand how this is metaphor and not a concrete prophecy? I also didn’t call anyone idiot, that bothers me to insinuate I did. Right now, I’m being as diplomatic as possible with Nutrideath. No one calls me 10 to my face and the blog shouldn’t substitute that form of mannerisms.
Comment by: Ron
26I can see the tension building already so let me help…if ya’ll will allow it. I know we can’t help someone until they are ready to be helped so please read this with an open heart and let you conscience or conviction speak to you.
There is bitterness on all sides or else we would not be still talking about it. Some would say, “well lets just move on.” Before we can move on productively, we need to address this. So what is bitterness? You may have your own ideas but the best definition I have ever heard is this, “bitterness is drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.”
So where do we go from their? Stop drinking poison is the first thing. Secondly when ever I have been hurt by someone, I notice that I expect something from them. I have an attitude of “you owe me something to repay me the hurt you caused.” If I may be so bold, get over it. Whatever IT is, you aren’t going to get it back. It doesn’t matter what IT is, your not going to get it back. It is not fair to yourself or the other person to lay those unspoken expectations on them.
Now having said that, I also think that it is okay to feel hurt…but manage it internally and don’t lay that burden on the other person. Feeling hurt is part of healing.
Even yesterday, after Jim’s rebuke, I wanted to justify my actions more than anything but I heard…that still small voice saying, “no you don’t need to justify anything, just apologize and have faith that they hear your apology and the heart in which it is spoken.”
So to Nutrideath, I would say, “Let the Lord do your justifying for you. As hard as it is to do. Turn loose of it and trust Him.
To TX and Ir, I would say, “Try and be underderstanding and know in your own hearts that Nutrideath is going to hurt you sometimes because he believes differently. Expect that and don’t feel that he owes you anything, as hard as it is to do. Trust me I know it is hard.
On all sides, if you don’t want to fall don’t walk on ice. In other words, don’t tread on ground that you know is touchy for the opposing side. We can do this with a mutual respect for one another, but not without that respect.
Comment by: NCxian
27“conflict-averseness”
Comment by: Stephan
28Ir, I agree that TX deserved the apologies from yesterday. I believe he may have pushed a little too hard, but he did not make personal attacks, while Nutrideath did.
Nutrideath, I think it would be a good idea to back off the prophecy thing. The Atheists here are not going to be convinced, and it will only widen the divide. It is not productive discussion. If you want to debate, please find TX’s email address on the other thread and go at it. Just leave the rest of us out.
Comment by: TXatheist
29Truce=clean slate=let’s move on=next topic …please, pretty please:)
Comment by: Winn
30TX,
My comment was not about whether prophecies are true or not true, filled or not filled. I was interested in the “thought pattern” about “opinions” that seemed to be applied only to one side of the discussion.
In my opinion, and with all that I have read, [how's that Ir :-)], I’m not sure that “factual” would be the only criteria for believing prophetic fulfillment.
BTW: Is “factual” a string attached to your being “open-minded?”
Ir, I have no comment about the “Jim, TXatheist and Nutrideath” episode. My comment was about asking TX that when it comes to “opinions” is what is good for the goose also good for the gander.
I was more interesting in the “line of thinking” than entering into what seems to be a “closed” issue.
Comment by: Lisa W.
31NCxian et all
- I’m gonna make some brownies. Anybody want some?
Comment by: Ron
32I’d love some but I have to ask nicely or my wife might accuse me of being a “Bra Driver.”
Comment by: Lisa W.
33We’ll pass her the ’special’ brownie. She’ll be fine.
Comment by: Ron
34Here is a question for us to chew on. Someone spurred a thought (I’m telling you people you gota look out with me, you never know what you are going to get when I get thoughts).
If the single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips and then turn Him away with their life style. [Get ready, here it goes] Is it possible for an atheist to convert someone into the Christian faith?
Comment by: NCxian
35Lisa W.
I’m in!
Comment by: Ron
36How come I don’t get the special brownie? Will it impair my thinking?
Comment by: TXatheist
37Ron,
I don’t think it’s the behavior of some xians that turned me away but I’ll go with your point. It’s possible as Madalyn O’Hair’s son did it, John Murphy. I won’t say I think why but he did.
Comment by: NCxian
38Ron: Can you try that question again? I didn’t get it. (not the one about the special brownie, the one about an atheist converting some to Christianity)
Comment by: Ron
39Can you hear me now?
Comment by: TXatheist
40Ron,
I did answer it right? You were saying how some christian behavior turns people into atheists when they see it and you wanted to know if the opposite was true, that an atheist could act bad and turn someone into a xian.
Comment by: Ron
41Just Kidding!
Is it possible for Atheists to convert someone into Christianity? They say that the single greatest cause of atheism today are Christians who profess Christ with their lips and turn Him away with their lifestyle. So if Christians can turn people to atheism, is the reverse possible?
Comment by: Ron
42Precisely TX
Comment by: TXatheist
43Ron,
Let’s go deeper please. Who says that? I don’t know of atheists that converted because of that but we do see it now that were out. Keep in mind atheists aren’t perfect so it’s not like we can hold the high ground at all.
Comment by: Ron
44When ya’ll get through chewing on that last question, here is another one (I told you people to look out).
this one is going to be fun…I don’t want any fights. What is the purpose of life? Ooo, I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, and please, lets have some depth here.
Comment by: Ron
45Ghandi said a veriation of it. I don’t know the origin exactly, I heard it on a DC Talk CD and then my wife said that it was true so I figured that some research had been done. The lesson is, take everything your wife says as true.
Comment by: TXatheist
46Sorry if this appears shallow but life is what you make it. Where xians might say free will I say choices and consequences. We set our own destiny for the most part.
Comment by: Ron
47TX,
So what do we make of it? Wouldn’t what we make of it be the purpose?
Comment by: Cully
48I’m not sure that your premise is sound Ron. Hypocritical xtians might be the reason that a lot of people turn away from the church… but there is a difference between leaving the church and becoming atheist.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
49TXAtheist.
I really zoned in on this comment of yours “We set our own destiny for the most part.” I totally agree. (I’m finding I agree with a lot of what atheists say, at least with your comments.) I think the Bible actually says that pretty clearly, too. And I think (my opinion only) that what I call free will and you call choices and consequences is kinda the same thing. Reaping what you sow and all. Sorry to bust in on the discussion, it just struck me.
Comment by: TXatheist
50I’ll answer that if you look at the who says atheists convert because of the behavior of some xians. please.
Comment by: TXatheist
51No problem Peter, I think it’s actually really cool that we see eye to eye on it.
Comment by: TXatheist
52Ron,
It is my purpose to leave the world a better place than I found it. I want to recycle more, care for the earth more, have my son be smarter than I am, treat blacks better than my ancestors did, learn more about the world etc. That’s it in a nutshell.
Comment by: Ron
53TX,
What are you asking me for?
Comment by: Stephan
54Ron, the quote you are looking for is from Brennan Manning, and it is quoted in the dc talk song “What if I Stumble”:
I doubt that it is entirely accurate. Atheists I have encountered here have said nothing about the behavior of Christians leading them away from belief. It was that what they believed as a Christian and what they experienced in life did not match up.
I think the behavior of some Christians can certainly keep people away from the church, but I don’t think it would lead them to Atheism.
Comment by: TXatheist
55Ron,
You said
Who is they?
I think Stephan answered it, it’s a lyric to a song is all that the they comes from
Comment by: Ron
56Stephen,
I wasn’t talking about the atheists here although I know that I am also talking to atheists. Notice my friendly overtone in my comment on #45.
Comment by: Ron
57TX,
It was a quote that the band used from Brennan Manning before the song began. I fear that everyone is missing the point.
Comment by: Stephan
58Ok, I’ll bite. I don’t think the bad behavior of an Atheist would lead someone to become a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or follower of any other religion. They’ll probably just say, “What a jerk,” and move on.
But I also disagree with the underlying premise that it is bad behavior of Christians that makes people Atheists. Manning is a Christian author, so his perspective on Atheists may not be entirely accurate.
Comment by: TXatheist
59Ron,
What’s the point? I will admit I’m not following your message but your literal question.
Comment by: Ron
60Stephen,
Laying behavior as a determinant aside. Is it possible for an atheist to convert someone to Christianity? That is how I meant the question. It is supposed to be fun to think about…to get our minds off of comments # 1-30.
Comment by: Ron
61TX,
See #60.
Comment by: Stephan
62Ron, I believe God can speak through whomever and whatever He pleases. I believe all truth comes from God, and it can come from the mouth of an Atheist just as much as from the mouth of anyone else. I have learned about my relationship with God through Siamang, Ir and TXatheist in the last few weeks.
I appreciate your attempt at diversion.
Comment by: NCxian
63Ron:
Your question #1: In the first case (Christian to atheist), a person of “belief” is influencing a person toward a position of “not belief”. It is harder to imagine the second case, a person of “not belief” influencing someone to a position of “belief”. It all makes me a little sea-sick (to borrow a phrase).
Your question #2: I understand that the hokey-pokey is what it’s all about. But, if that turns out to be mistaken, then I’ll go with TXAtheist on this one (Comment. . . uhm . . . #52).
Comment by: Texan
64Hey all, interesting discussion today, as always. I have a question that relates to what Stephen said in #58, but anyone can toss in their two cents.
Stephen said:
My question is, can someone not be part of something yet have an accurate perspective?
Manning’s perspective might not be accurate in this case-this may be true, but is it possible to look in from the outside and be able to have a good perspective on something?
For instance, just as an example, can a person have an accurate perspective on what is happening somewhere overseas? Can a middle-class person know what life is like for a homeless man or low-income family? Does a white person know what it’s like to be black? or a minority know what it’s like to be a majority?
Would it take emersion into a culture, family, or working condition to have an accurate perspective on something, or can that be attained by conversation and research?
How often do we depend on certain types of information gathering? (i.e. experience, word of mouth, research, TV, movies)
Which ones work the best, which ones are the most efficient?
I’m asking because I really want to know. We are limited to blogging here, but if we could take some ideas with us every day, perhaps we could learn to understand and relate to others better.
Comment by: Lisa W.
65OKAY! SPECIAL BROWNIES FOR EVERYONE!
It’s especially good for sea-sickness, and hokey-pokey recovery.
Enjoy.
I love you guys but I have to get back to the kitchen… I mean..work.
Comment by: Texan
66sweet!
“Special” brownies are good for you!
yeah, yeah, roll with it!
What’s work? Oh yeah, that thing I’m here for. :)
Comment by: Ron
67Texan,
It feels so strange addressing the person I love the most with her screen name. Can I just let everyone know that your real name is Beula? :-)
Anyway you asked:
Well, Franklin’s pocket dictionary says that the definition of empathy is:
I will say that the words “capacity for” preceding experience is confusing but, my answer is…whatever you think babe. If you are thinking it, you are absoulutely correct. :-)
For those who don’t know, Beula I mean, Texan is my wife.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
68Gentlefolk, adieu. The learning curve is flattening out. I may check back from time to time to see what’s going on, but for now I must attend to more pressing matters. It has been interesting and some of you have been exemplary teachers. (And maybe not entirely who you’d expect. ;-) )
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
69Tom,
Take care, your input is/was much appreciated.
Comment by: Ron
70Tom,
It won’t be the same without you. I don’t mean to state the obvious, but in all seriousness, I hope that you will return to teach us. I think that you have a lot of insight to offer. Thanks,
Ron
Comment by: Esther
71Hi, everyone,
Although I have the problem of gluttony, I’ll have some of Lisa L’s brownies. Um..YumYum. :-)
Before I said what I want to say here, I want to just let Ir, Jim, and Ron (& everyone) knows that I’ve left comments for you in another blog.
(I left one on the previous page - Atheist Pastor - for Ir, and one last night on “Montrous Certainty)
I saw that the discussion is getting heat up here this morning (I think that’s what happen when people get a little closer, physically or mentally. It’s just normal). So I figure maybe you would miss checking the other blog. Just so you know, no pressure for your reply.
Ron, in response to your question,
I am a Christian who eventhough still attend Church (I have my reason), but am very much discussd by many of the Church’s teaching. So I would categorize myself first with Christian who turn away from Church by some other Xian’s belief’s system.
Yet, I think I’m going towards the direction of Atheist’s, or Agnostic’s. (So, Texan or Beula, at least the saying is right with me :-) )
If you are interested in understanding why, please check out the entries I’ve input in the other blog (they’re towards the end, not hard to find)
I found that by reading in this site, my thinking is very close with Ir’s. She said that she once was a Christian (A serious one, I gather), but now she chose not to think of God in a personal way.
I’ve been asking her what that really means.
Is she an atheist, agnostic, or what?
Comment by: Ir
72Wow - I came back to a question for me! Hi Esther :)
I don’t pray, I don’t read the Bible for personal guidance, I don’t make my decisions based on what God-who-may-or-may-not-exist may or may not think about them.
I live my life without reference to God-who-may-or-may-not-exist. God-who-may-or-may-not-exist is not a part of my life.
Comment by: TXatheist
73Ir,
I may have missed it but have you posted your religious stance? Are you one who avoids labels?
Comment by: Ir
74TX, yes I am one who avoids labels :). Until about 5 years ago I was a Christian with no serious doubts. Around that time I started to have doubts which increased and over a period of time resulted in me being as I described in #72.
Comment by: Jayson B.
75If God talked through humans, the moment he would do so would completely destroy free will. Once again, xtians cannot have their cake and eat it too: “fate,” “predetermination,” God or the devil influencing humans are NOT compatible with free will. Either God gave us free will, or we are slaves. there isn’t a middle ground here.
It’s sad to say, but this blog is now devolving in to that which I see in any other discussion forum I’ve been on for any length. This is what happens:
1. Everyone is happy
2. Things go well
3. Someone who doesn’t particularly understand the nature of the conversation comes along and makes a statement just outside the boundaries of the group
4. People, whereas before quite openminded and understanding of one another, begin taking sides.
5. Someone becomes the mother hen, attempting to distract everyone with niceties, playfulness, and changing to weaker subjects
6. People fade away.
Nutrideath,
Just because you don’t like what someone says to you doesn’t mean they’re attacking you or calling you an idiot. People who lack critical thinking skills tend to quickly assume that anyone who disagrees is insulting them and attacking them. You clearly lack an understanding of what an actual debate is.
You are not a victim. You’re not happy that your actions were made visible to everyone. Accept, apologize, and DROP IT. You’re still trying to desperately be right in some way, shown by your first post in this thread. You’ll be wrong to us atheists and right to the christians, and just accepting and apologizing isn’t going to change that.
Comment by: Nutrideath
76Oh Jayson, I definitely know when I’m being insulted. Especially when its by someone without critical thinking skills. :)
Comment by: Jayson B.
77Nutrideath,
You react, rather listen. The difference is staggering, and yet falls completely silent on you. You’re simply not worth responding to after this. That’s a shame.
Comment by: Nutrideath
78Oh Jayson Jayson Jayson. Anybody can be condescending.
Comment by: Stephan
79Jayson, sounds like someone woke up on the cynical side of the bed this morning. If you don’t want this to devolve into something less that it could be, please don’t push it in that direction. I agree that the progression you laid out is already happening here, but don’t give up on it. Or… maybe… you should…
Comment by: Ir
80Jayson, I don’t think that’s fair and I also think comments such as the above fall in the category Jim referred to yesterday when he said “We don’t speak to each other like that”.
We all sometimes react too much and listen too little. So Nutrideath is human.
Comment by: Ron
81Jayson,
What you said to Nutrideath aside,
Do you think that God is limited to act only on what we are capeable of understanding?
Comment by: TXatheist
82I’m jumping in. Jayson is being like Fran and how I think. He is not attacking or being cynical in the slightest as I see it. If you don’t know it we are very much trying to be nice but beating a dead horse gets ridiculous. No one has perfect critical thinking skills. I don’t and no one else does either. Jayson’s point of Nutrideath trying to be right somehow is dead on. I asked Nutrideath a simple question that again I promise not to respond to.
Nutrideath,
Why can’t you let go of god? Why can’t you differentiate between science and god?
Comment by: Jayson B.
83Ron,
according to your definition of god, yes, he’s capable of doing things beyond our understanding. But by meaning those “things,” those are things that we aren’t able to understand yet. Logic isn’t one of those things.
could you may be explain to me how a god who has predetermined our exisistance, has a “plan” for us, uses our minds and bodies to speak his words (not our own), and made us capable of being influenced by his enemy, also gave us the ability to choose our own destiny? It’s a classic dillemma, and saying “god works in mysterious way” doesn’t excuse it into oblivion. The way I see it, God either gave us free will and thereby the type of god who enjoys punishing us eternally, or we are the pawns of god with no use other than to be players in god’s game, making us instantly forgivable. (and thereby, doesn’t relish condemning us to a eternal punishment).
Comment by: Ron
84TX,
I’m not Nutrideath but I am imagining for myself, what do you mean let go of God? What does that look like?
Because God invented science is the Christian perspective.
Comment by: TXatheist
85Jayson,
In my xian days god could do anything because I said he could. I truly believed god had all the power and knowledge he wanted IF he wanted to use it. I can’t begin to explain how I believed that other than I just accepted that religious view and no one could prove me wrong because it really was a belief in my head.
Comment by: TXatheist
86Thanks Ron,
How did god come to be or has he always been as I once believed? I know where this is headed next so I’ll just listen to your answer.
Comment by: Ron
87TX,
I believe that God has always been.
Comment by: Ron
88Jayson,
Are you offended by my question? That certainly wasn’t my intention. To answer your question,
Ephesians 1:5
God predestined all who choose to believe in Jesus. This he did because of His kindness. It is a confusing verse but I see this as God saying that he will open the door to all who believe in Christ, to be his children. God decided this before we believed and that is how it is predestination.
Comment by: Jayson B.
89Ron,
Don’t worry, I wasn’t offended. I let people know when they do that.
But Ron, is god predestined those who believe in Jesus, that means he predestined those who don’t believe in Jesus as well. Technically, you can’t predestine anybody or anything without predestining everything else. Either the universe is set in stone and predetermined, or else god tossed out his marbles and lets them fall where they may.
Comment by: TXatheist
90Ron,
I’m going to guess that Jayson is banging his head against the wall:)
Comment by: Ir
91TX and Jayson, I think Ron is citing the collective interpretation of Ephesians 1:5, which doesn’t say that God predestined particular individuals.
Comment by: TXatheist
92Ir,
I understand completely where Ron is coming from but only because I was there once. I just don’t know if Jayson ever was a xian so it may sound like Mandarin Chinese to him if he’s never been or read the xian perspective.
Comment by: Ron
93Jayson,
Why?
Comment by: Ir
94Ron, when you take one cookie off the cookie tray, you not only picked that one, you also didn’t pick the rest.
Comment by: Jayson B.
95Ron,
it’s very simple.
I have a pile of rocks. I have two boxes labeled left and right.
I choose 10 rocks out of my pile to go in to the left box. The others go in to the right box.
By the very nature of me choosing rocks to go into the left box, I also chose what was *not* going into the left box. I cannot choose what goes into the left box WITHOUT choosing what doesn’t go into the left box.
Comment by: Ron
96Not from my standpoint because I might take another cookie later and so on and so on until I’ve enjoyed them all.
Comment by: Stephan
97Jayson, if you stopped studying theology 350 years ago (which, sadly, many Christian college professors did), those would be your only options. There are a lot more open views now that can still be backed up Biblically.
Comment by: Ron
98I understand concrete thinking. Jayson, you were afraid that the conversation would would crater to a weaker subject and so I engaged you.
I am thinking abstractly, you said that by default God predestined those whom he didn’t predestine. I disagree.
Comment by: Jayson B.
99What views are those stephan?
god cannot halfway predestine. Either predestines, or he does not predestine. Either we have free will, or we have fate devoid of real choice. I’d love to hear views that somehow get around something that is clearly a logical dillemma.
And I’m sorry, but “because god can do what he wants” isn’t an answer.
Comment by: Stephan
100There really isn’t space here to elaborate fully, but I could recommend some great books. “A New Kind of Christian” by Brian McClaren. “Is God to Blame” by Gregory Boyd. This is where you show if you are really interested in learning, or just stirring things up on the message board.
Comment by: TXatheist
101Jayson,
Were you ever a xian or studied the bible from a xian viewpoint? If not I respectfully say you will soon be banging your head on the wall.
Comment by: Jayson B.
102Tx,
I already am banging my head. I was a christian for nearly all of my life. My entire family still is.
Stephan,
it saddens me that you think that I’m trying to stir anything up at all rather than learning or providing to the debate on the site. I don’t see why you can’t give a brief idea rather than telling me to purchase yet another book (I see this response from xtians all the time: buy this book, it’ll explain). If I gave you a list of titles to purchase rather than attempting to back up my own claims, would you purchase them?
The pile of rocks stands. You cannot choose, and therefore determine (in god’s case, pre-determine) what will go into the left pile without determining what will *not* go into the left pile. it is impossible, even for god.
Comment by: Ron
103Sorry guys I would love to keep engaging but as life would have it we have to leave now for Dallas for the weekend. I don’t know if I will be able to blog or not maybe on Sunday. I just wanted to let you know that I am not avoiding ya’ll.
Comment by: drwinn
104Hey guys and gals,
The webguy here. A reminder: The focus of this site is conversation not debate. Debate implies a winner and a loser, conversation an “exchange of thoughts, opinions, and feelings” with no winner or loser.
Comment by: Stephan
105Jayson, send me your address and I’ll send you the books. skfenton@comcast.net
The ideas of which I speak are called Open Theism. I am getting kids to bed right now, so I can’t elaborate, but if you will email me at the above address I can send you more information.
Comment by: Eliza
106Stephan, thank you for your comments - I looked up Open Theism based on your last post, had never heard of this school of thought before, very interesting to know it’s out there & I’ll explore it more. As you say, this approach accomodates some otherwise (imo) troublesome inconsistencies, including the “problem” of free will, in a thoughtful, Biblically-based manner.
P.S. I haven’t converted, am just interested in learning more!
Comment by: Ir
107Hi Jayson,
There are lots of website about Open Theism on the Internet; for example:
The Open Theism Information Site
Wikipedia’s entry on Open Theism
Open View Theism on Greg Boyd’s site
Since Open Theism is rather controversial among Christians, there are sites deeply critical of it which explain why; for example:
Open Theism and Why It Is Incorrect
My experience with sites is that the ones promoting something explain it most accurately but aren’t as good at pointing out why its opponents don’t like it as the sites opposing it. On the other hand, the sites opposing it often are opposing somewhat of a mischaracterization. If I read both it gives me the best chance of figuring out what it really is and why some people are very against it.
As I said, Open Theism is controversial. In 2002 a member of the Evangelical Theological Society began an attempt to get the two members who are Open Theists removed from the society. The attempt failed. If you want to know more about that you can read about on The 2003 ETS Membership Challenge
Ok, those links should be enough to get you and anyone else curious about Open Theism started… :)
Comment by: Ir
108I guess I may as well state my understanding of what Open Theism is.
Open Theists believe God doesn’t completely know or completely determine the future. He is to some extent ‘in time’ like humans are in time. His omniscience tells him possible futures but he has allowed humans to have free will and he doesn’t know what choices they will make until they make them. The limits on God are ones he voluntarily placed there himself when he created everything because he wanted humans to have free will [more than he wanted to control everything, I guess].
Open theists feel that this view of God is better supported by such Bible verses as those which say God changes his mind and responds to human prayer than the more traditional view(s) of God.
I am glad that Open Theists are taking what the Bible actually says seriously enough that they are using it to form their view of God rather than starting with a view of God and explaining away the verses that say God changes his mind and responds to human prayer and other things that happen.
I can also see that why critics argue such a view doesn’t provide the emotional security a person gets from believing in a God who has chosen to have everything under his control, including the salvation and eternal destiny of that person.
Critics also argue that Open Theism is not what the Bible teaches. They say Open Theists explain away the verses which contradict open theism - well, of course they would, wouldn’t they? ;)
Comment by: Stephan
109Eliza and Ir, thanks for doing the work for me.
Comment by: Jayson B.
110Thank you for giving me the links. Open theism is certainly very interesting, although from my point of view it simply exchanges one set of logical dillemmas for another set of them.
I’m curious: any of you whom are using open theism as an answer to my questions, do you believe in open theism?
Comment by: Ir
111You’re welcome, Stephan. I didn’t know what sort of information there would be online about Open Theism until I looked - it turns out there’s a lot!
Comment by: Ir
112Jayson, I’m not personally committed to any type of theism at the moment. I see problems with all of them, basically.
Comment by: Eliza
113Ir, thanks for the links. Jayson, I’m atheist but very interested in how people come to such different conclusions given similar evidence.
Comment by: Nutrideath
114Jayson,
Interesting topic - free will. Here’s my take on it, if anyone’s interested:
Humans were given free-will by God. If you look closely at the scripture in Eph. 1:5’s context, you’ll see that Paul is speaking about a group. (Ir covered this point, but I thought I’d add to it.) What the scripture is saying is that God foreordained that there would be a group of individuals that would have his approval. But he didn’t foreordain any individual to be or not to be in that group, just that the group would exist. It reminds you of statistics: if you give away free blueberry pie, then some wont take it because they don’t like blueberries, some because they don’t like pie. But it’s an almost certainty that if you offer it to enough people, someone will take you up on it. If you offer it to 10,000 people, there will be a group of people who accept. So the analogy of choosing rocks from a pile doesn’t quite match what God does with humans. He allows each individual to make their choice.
The fact that God or Satan influences an individual does not remove their free will. If you are trying to decide whether to buy a specific car, you might talk to the salesman, & you might talk to your neighbor who bought the same model last year. Each influences your decision, neither takes it away from you.
As for God seeing the future: He has that ability. But just because he has the ability doesn’t mean he uses it all the time. A weightlifter might have developed the ability to lift really heavy weights, but that doesn’t mean he necessarily goes around picking up cars in parking lots. So when God chooses to see the future, he does. But it’s not as if he has no choice in the matter.
On the other hand, if God wants something to occur, he makes it happen. And yes, he can change his mind if he wants (notice the book of Jonah, how God changed his mind about the city of Ninevah).
Comment by: Stephan
115Nutrideath, Open Theism would argue against some of your assertions. OT states that God can know everything there is to know, but since the future has not happened yet, it is not there to know. He can see all possible options, and envision which option is most likely to be chosen, but He cannot see the future until it happens and becomes the present.
It would also state that God cannot always make what He wants happen. He created rules for the universe that He cannot always break. He accepted these limits as part of creation.
I’m not sure I totally agree with what OT claims, but it sounds plausible to me. Given the option between Calvinism and Open Theology, I’ll take OT every time.
Comment by: Ir
116Thanks for sharing your view, Nutrideath - I was interested to read it.
Stephan, I agree that the God Open Theism (or Nutrideath’s views) depict is much nicer than the God Calvinism depicts. (That predestination to hell stuff…yikes…)
Comment by: Nutrideath
117Stephan,
I’ve never heard of OT until I read about it here. But I definitely think God can break the rules he set up at creation at will.
The Bible tells of miraculous instances that break those laws. That’s mainly why they are considered “miraculous.” Take for instance Daniel’s friends in the fiery furnace. Or the Israelites crossing the Red Sea on dry land.
As far as prediction, the prophecies the Bible fortold happenings hundreds of years before they occured in many cases. For example, there were at least 400 prophecies concerning the Messiah before his birth. Many of them were not prophecies that Jesus could have read about & then fulfilled on purpose (i.e. - his being born in Bethlehem, children being murdered, his lineage, etc.). Or in the case of non-Messianic prophecies, the name of Babylon’s conquerer (Cyrus) was recorded more than 400 years before his birth.
His prophecies are not as you describe OT would specify. They are specific, and never miss.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
118Jayson B.: My thoughts about God are very similar to Open Theism. I see free will as a necessity for me to believe in God. I believe that humans were created differently from other animals and that difference is free will, which can be thought of as the human spirit. God created us with free will because he wanted us to love Him. This is not possible without that freedom.
I generally do not accept predestination. Does this mean that God does not have a plan for my life? I don’t know, but Him having a plan for me does not mean that I must follow it. I also do not have much use for prophesies, especially ones about the end times. Does this mean that God does not reveal to us things about the future? I think He does, but knowing the future and controlling it are two different things.
On the issue of omnipotence, I can reason that if there are some things that God would never do because it is not His character, then it does not matter that He is able to do them. If the limits are self-imposed, they are still limits. This does not mean that God is not powerful. I believe that He is the First Cause that created the universe. He lit the fuse on the Big Bang. If that isn’t powerful, I don’t know what is.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
119Nutrideath, I am a Christian and I have a problem with the idea of miracles. It would mean that I could not trust the laws of nature. If miracles existed it would mean chaos in my worldview. I also understand the flip side of that. If God does not intervene, then we are at the mercy of nature, and thus chaos.
I also generally do not believe God gave us His Word as a history book. It was given to us so that we would know how to live our lives for Him. For example, as I see it, the story of Lot’s wife is not about a person being magically transformed into a pillar of salt, but is a moral lesson for us: Don’t look back on your past life of sin and moral depravity once you have turned away from it. Thus the prophecies that the Bible contains are mechanisms for teaching us, not demonstrations of His power.
Comment by: Ir
120Hi Bruce,
I noticed from your site that you believe a lot of the Bible is allegory rather than history (I apologize if I didn’t quite state your view correctly - that was what I thought I read on your site). I find that an interesting view; I have a couple of questions about it:
If the stories in the Bible are not meant to be historical, why does the Bible present them as if they are historically true?
Do you think the death and resurrection of Jesus is historically true?
Comment by: Jayson B.
121Ok, Tx was right, this is where I bang my head against the wall.
So, if god is not all powerful and not all knowing, but most important, can change his mind, do we all agree that god then is clearly not a perfect being?
I’m finding this terribly interesting though. But what doesn’t work is the fact that god can pre-ordaine some things, but not others. If God created the universe, and he has foreknowledge of even *one* event…………then god has preordained everything and there’s not way around this. When you create the universe, you “set up” everything to happen after that. If you know about even one event after that, you know what actions you took at the begining to create that event. Actions are tied into all other actions, and there’s no way around this guys.
It’s like setting up dominos. I set up this elaborate game of dominos, so I know *exactly* how it’s going to end. By the very act of setting them up in the fashion that I did, I am choosing how they fall. god cannot create the universe and all things in it and not preordaine. It is impossible. You are trying to rectify your own paradoxes.
Comment by: Ir
122No. It depends how you define ‘perfect’. A person can be perfect and also change their mind by always making the perfect decision based on the information available. As more information becomes available (which has to be the case, I would think, as the future becomes the past and hence changes from a range of possibilities to one actuality) the perfect decision may change whenever it is information-dependent.
Jayson, you asserted (it would have been nice if you had said ‘in my opinion’) that it’s impossible to set things up and not pre-ordain them - I disagree, given that humans have free-will. I buy a range of breakfast cereals, thus setting up the choices of cereal available to my family members. But they are not locked into any one choice. They are free to eat Cheerios or Rice Krispies or whatever. If I can do that, why can God not do that when he sets things up?
Comment by: Jayson B.
123I’ll reply in more detail Ir, but I want to ask this question first:
So, if you gave your family breakfast cereal choices, but wanted them to choose Wheaties………..if they chose captain crunch would you take them in the back yard and lock them inside the shed and set the shed on fire because you love them but they made the wrong choice? And hey, you’re the parent, and you set the rules, you love them so much that they need an agonizing death for choosing the cereal you didn’t want them to choose even though you gave them clearly free will in the decision.
You can’t have free will *and* punishment for not serving someone based on arbitrary decisions (the cereal). To me, if god is actually that jealous, that sadistic, and that power mongering, then he doesn’t deserve my praise for the *love* that he offers those who make honest decisions by burning them in a lake of fire for all eternity.
Either god loves us all, or he enjoys torture.
Comment by: Ir
124Jayson, I understand your point exactly. I’ve even posted on this board before (you probably didn’t see it) that this is my problem with a God who lets people freely choose for or against him.
This is how I am: I let my children choose what cereal to have (to some extent) but I’m not going to let them run out into the street in front of an oncoming vehicle! So why does God just shrug and say “Ok, but don’t say I didn’t warn you” to people who are freely choosing what - according to Christian belief - will end them up in eternal torment.
Let’s say God doesn’t enjoy torture because I think that’s what most Christians would say. Then how can God bear having all those people in hell forever? I don’t get it.
Comment by: Jayson B.
125Ir,
Thank you. I think too many christians wish their faith to be infallible, so rather than admit there are clear dillemmas, they try to explain them away. This is where the “can’t plug all the holes in a dam” thing comes from. If people would just say “yeah, you know, that is a problem,” rather than “I have an answer even though it’s going to directly conflict with another problem with our faith,” then I would have FAR less of a problem wit how people present their faith to me.
Comment by: Jayson B.
126Here’s another question:
who created hell? Did god create hell to punish us with, or did satan create hell?
If it’s the latter, than why does god use hell? If satan didn’t create hell, we would still have our free will, so would god punish us or would we all be following him?
Comment by: Ir
127Jayson, again I agree. But at this point I don’t consider myself a Christian because I have so many problems with the faith. I was, without serious doubts, for over 15 years. But then the doubts began and increased until I ended up where I am today - not praying, not reading the Bible for personal inspiration/guidance and not going to church.
Comment by: TXatheist
128Jayson, two words describe how I see myself from the atheist view back to my christian logic, circular reasoning. I am not being derogatory but in short am telling you there is no way the atheist can understand god. I’ve tried and everytime I ask a question they always have an answer, one I usually don’t agree with. That’s my reason for saying you’ll be banging your head against the wall.
Comment by: Ir
129Like you, you mean, who is sitting at your computer insulting people? How is that being a productive citizen of the USA?
Comment by: Ir
130TXatheist, as you said, there is no way an atheist can understand God.
In my experience, Christians readily admit they don’t understand God.
Here’s the difference: when an atheist can’t understand God, the atheist concludes “this picture of God must be wrong because it makes no sense”. And when all pictures of God make no sense to the atheist, he/she concludes God cannot exist.
When a Christian/theist can’t understand God, that’s not a problem. The Christian/theist simply says “That’s because I’m just human - of course I can’t understand God - God is so much greater than I am! It would be like a worm trying to understand a human being. It’s impossible”. So, when a Christian/theist finds he/she can’t understand God, rather than causing them to doubt God’s existence, it actually leads them to praise God for being so amazingly more than mere humans that humans don’t even come close to understanding him.
It has made me want to bang my head against the wall too sometimes. Except, I didn’t because it would have hurt :)
Comment by: TXatheist
131Ir, you’re absolutely correct imo. And either get a harder head or softer walls:) My wife says I went with the hard head and it’s working out so wonderfully:)
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
132Ir, to answer your question to me about my belief about the Bible and in the Resurrection:
I believe the authors of the Bible used historical events to teach a lesson. Their intent was not historical accuracy however, but getting across a message. This does not mean that the events didn’t happen, it just makes the historicity unimportant.
I think that there was probably an historical person that we know as Jesus, that started Christianity, that was really executed sometime in the mid 1st century C.E.. The descriptions of His death in the Bible may not match the actual events exactly however. I do not know how much variance there is, but it is clear to me that the dividing of the curtain in the temple is a clear symbol of a barrier being removed between us and God.
Before I started studying the Bible I imagined the Resurrection as something like a zombie or vampire rising from the dead (I bet you can tell I liked horror movies :)). The Resurrection as described in the Bible is somewhat vague though. The Bible seems to say that He didn’t look like He did before his death. To Paul He just appeared as a bright light. The message of the resurrection is that we can overcome spiritual death just as Jesus overcame physical death. Jesus did overcome physical death since Christianity is still around 2000 years later.
I still struggle with the passages in 1 Corinthians 15 that talks about this. I don’t worry about it too much though because it gets into eschatology (end times stuff), which is not important to me right now.
Comment by: Ron
133While I was gone this weekend there have been so many things addressed here that I don’t know where to start. Thanks everyone for helping me with your insight into your beliefs.
Briefly on some of the big points. Most Christians will believe Malachi 3:6 concerning the changability of God.
Next, Jayson said:
A lot of Christians may think that but those may be the ones least educated. If our faith were infallible, how could we continue to grow in it?
Then much to my surprise he said:
This was a big one for me; I expected the science people to jump on this one (now watch them jump on me :-) ). From my Christian perspective niether one created hell. It is a by product. By definition, darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of good. They are more than just opposites, one came to be by the creation of the other. How would we know what good is if we never experienced any evil? We know and choose good because we have experienced the absence of it. Heaven and hell are the same way. Hell is merely the abscense of Heaven.
Comment by: Nutrideath
134imho, I believe that that scripture does not conflict with the concept of God changing his mind, or his judgement.
Take for instance the account of Jonah. God had decided that the people of Ninevah were so evil he would destroy them. Before he did, he sent Jonah, as his prophet, to warn them. The warning caused the people of Ninevah to change their ways. They were truly repentant, & so God decided not to destroy them after all.
God’s standards did not change in this case. The actions & attitudes of the people of Ninevah were what changed.
As for hell and eternal torment, those are doctrines not found in the Bible. They were invented by Satan & counterfeit Christians. Satan likes that doctrine to be taught because it maligns God - he is painted as a torturer. The counterfeit Christians like it because it scares people to church.
Comment by: Ir
135Nutrideath, did God change his mind about wiping out all the Israelites after Moses pleaded with God on their behalf? Or was he never really going to wipe them out anyway?
Here’s the passage I’m thinking of:
Comment by: Nutrideath
136Ir, I think he did change his mind. He “relented” because he was influenced by the pleadings of Moses.
To me, that’s really heartening, to know that God can be influenced by even a single human.
Comment by: Ir
137Thanks Nutrideath - actually I see that you already said in comment #114 that you believe God can change his mind. My apologies for not reading more carefully. Yes, I found it encouraging too before my doubts set in.
Yes, it can scare people to church - but I’m not sure how long those people stay there.
So what does happen to people after they die?
Comment by: Nutrideath
138Ir, notice what God told Adam once he had eaten from the forbidden tree:
God didn’t tell Adam he would be tormented forever. He told him he would return to the state he was in before his creation. What was Adam’s condition before he was created?
More clarification can be found:
The dead are unconscious. They have no knowledge, they can do nothing. They, just like Adam, have returned to the state they were in before their birth.
They simply do not exist. Their hope lies in the promised resurrection.
(Sheol is the Hebrew equivalent of the english word “grave” - not in the sense of a single grave, but in the more abstract sense, as when we might say “from the cradle to the grave.” Some translations use the word “hell” as the translation, because in the old english the word “hellen” means “covered over, esp. with earth; bury” The english word “hell” has since taken on other - more pagan - meaning.)
Comment by: Ir
139Will everyone be resurrected?
Comment by: Nutrideath
140The Bible indicates that the vast majority will. Notice what Jesus himself said:
Paul was evidently quoting him later:
Why resurrect the evil? Adamic sin is what causes death. You could say the two are each on one side of the scales. Death is the price of sin, and once paid… Notice:
Comment by: Epiphany
141I’m curious as to why some people do not believe there is hell… I’ve heard arguments where people don’t want to believe in a loving God who would create a hell–but just because you don’t want to believe something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. God is loving, but also righteous and just–He doles out the good and the bad as He sees necessary. The Bible alludes to hell several times, and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus there is also a clear reference to hell. If anyone could explain their thinking on this, I would be interested to know…
Comment by: TXatheist
142Epiphany,
I think you said it best but just reverse roles. Just because you believe in something doesn’t mean it’s true.
Comment by: Epiphany
143TXatheist,
Hi, sorry my question was more directed toward Christians who hold this viewpoint–or more specifically to the person who remarked earlier:
“As for hell and eternal torment, those are doctrines not found in the Bible. They were invented by Satan & counterfeit Christians. Satan likes that doctrine to be taught because it maligns God - he is painted as a torturer. The counterfeit Christians like it because it scares people to church. ” (Nutrideath?)
TXAtheist, but I do have a question for you. How did you become an atheist?
Comment by: TXatheist
144Long story…short version. I got a book in college called “20 questions:an introduction into philosophy”. I started reading both sides of controversial issues. From then on I progressed from xian to atheist over several years. From a scientific standpoint I ask for proof of the god you speak of versus the 100’s before the current one people believe in. No evidence/proof surfaces so I stick to atheism by default.
Comment by: NCxian
145TXatheist and Epiphany:
I think you have given me an opening to ask a question that has been percolating as I have reading these posts for the last week or so. I will use a statement each of you have made, paraphrasing so as to make the two statements parallel. (Correct me if this screws up my whole point). Epiphany says, just because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean it is not true. TXatheist says, just because you believe something doesn’t mean it is true. These are commonly expressed notions in our conversations here. What happens next is sometimes some kind of (to my mind, not very useful) discussion of who has the burden of proof. My thought is that if you want to change my way of thinking, you have the burden of proof. If I want to change you, I have the burden of proof.
Anyway, given that what both of you are saying is (IMHO) undeniably true, how does anyone ever get anybody else to change their way of thinking on an issue about which the only “proof” is what a person believes?
Maybe that is too weird to try to think about. If so, ignore me.
Comment by: TXatheist
146Psalm 55:15:
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
Matthew 7:13-14:
The Large and Small Gates
13″Enter God’s kingdom through the narrow gate. The gate is large and the road is wide that lead to death and hell. Many people go that way. 14But the gate is small and the road is narrow that lead to life. Only a few people find it.
10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Comment by: Ir
147I think most people consider themselves to have evidence for what they believe (or reject) and for them that evidence was more convincing than the evidence against what they believe (or reject).
So, there is exchange of what people consider evidence in discussions. Perhaps if the evidence presented is new to the recipient, he/she might consider it and (over time) change his/her viewpoint.
Comment by: TXatheist
148NCxian,
Your point is valid but the way she stated it I merely tried to show her the other side using the same logic. I wouldn’t make that statement in a scientific examination. You’re right there is the element of burden of proof. I can explain it or I ask you look into it. I’ll summararize, the one making the claim has the burden of proof.
Comment by: Epiphany
149TXAtheist–Well, it almost seems like it would make more sense to be agnostic than atheist, in your case, because then you would be giving both sides the benefit of a doubt. I don’t think it’s possible to prove that God exists or does not exist using scientific measurements. Which is why it may not be possible to satisfy your request for proof. Also, even if I were able to procure a substantial amount of proof, I’m not sure if that would convince you (since it depends on perspective & whether you are willing to believe). However, when you look at the miracle of life or this incredible universe, doesn’t it make you wonder about an intelligent creator?
Comment by: TXatheist
150No. It makes me want to know how it all came to be. To figure it out scientifically. I realize your point of agnostic vs atheist. Wouldn’t you be an agnostic too then?
Comment by: Stephan
151Epiphany, let me step in as one who has been posting here almost since day 1. This line of dialog has happened several times, with the same result. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. I don’t want you to get into a debate with TXAtheist, because it will get ugly for everyone and no one will have learned anything.
NC, I was having the same thought earlier today about the burden of proof. I don’t think anyone will ever be able to prove the existence or non-existence of God. There is evidence both ways, but it can be interpreted any way you want, depending on your preconceived ideas. In the end, you make a decision whether or not to believe.
Comment by: Epiphany
152“Anyway, given that what both of you are saying is (IMHO) undeniably true, how does anyone ever get anybody else to change their way of thinking on an issue about which the only “proof” is what a person believes? ”
NCXian-Good question. So, you probably wouldn’t change a person’s way of thinking with just the “proof” itself. Maybe, it would also take a personal experience, or several people you trust who are talking about these things to you, or an act of God, or who knows, perhaps the logic may convince you.
Comment by: Stephan
153For most of the Atheists that have been posting here, it appears that it was logic that lead them away from belief in God. I doubt that it will lead them back.
Not that I think that belief in God is illogical. I just think it will take other types of evidence to convince them, if they are to be convinced.
Comment by: Epiphany
154TXAtheist, at one point I may have been an agnostic. So, perhaps at one point you were agnostic as well–I see your point. In any case, I am not trying to debate with you. Believe me, I have a very good friend who is atheist/agnostic and we’ve gotten to a point where we don’t even get into it.
And thanks Stephan for the comment, I didn’t mean to rehash anything that’s been done before. I am enjoying the discussion, though.
Comment by: TXatheist
155Stephan,
I’m trying to politely explain the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. There will never ever be evidence for god not existing. Evidence both ways? There is no evidence for god. There is belief but that is not evidence, it’s something in your head and hence your belief.
It will take proof if you will. Every atheist I know says that if god really wanted to have us stop disbelieving he could simply show himself. It’s really that simple. Now, I realize my statement implies many things but one is simple. God appear now or I remain an atheist….nothing happened for the most logical reason…occam’s razor.
Comment by: Stephan
156TX, you may not accept the evidence, but that does not mean it is not there. Many of us have talked about personal experiences, the intricacy of creation, archeological support for the Bible, etc. This is not proof, but many of us would call it evidence. You don’t think the evidence is compelling, but it’s still evidence, in my opinion.
I will concede that there is evidence that God does not exist, or that God as I understand Him does not exist. I don’t find the evidence compelling enough to change my mind.
Comment by: TXatheist
157Stephan,
Please check your wf email. From this day forward I will use the Allah evidence:) Sorry, but it’s evidence and not merely an idea in my head of my convictions. Please see I’m trying to make a point and not be a pain.
Comment by: TXatheist
158Stephan,
Let’s learn from this please:)
Please define belief:
Please define evidence:
You can use the dictionary but please write in your own wording/understanding of the definitions.
Comment by: NCxian
159TXatheist:
I really didn’t have a point to be making. I was just asking what you all thought.
Except, now that I think about it, maybe I was saying (hypothesizing, really, I’m not sure) that burdens of proof don’t seem to fit when you’re debating faith (I think I said “belief” but maybe “faith” is better). Because I don’t know if there is a way to arrive at any useful set of premises to have a debate from, if one person’s view is grounded in a conviction that there is something beyond the natural world, and the other person’s view is grounded in a conviction that there is only the natural world. For instance, the notion of having a scientific examination of a topic that deals with the . . . uhm . . . extra-natural(?) might be an oxymoron. In some way. Maybe.
I process things in a kind of roundabout way. It may be painful to watch!
Ir, I think I see what you are saying in a situation where both parties are willing to consider the possibility that the other person’s fundamental position is correct (that there is or is not something beyond the natural world).
And really, I am in no way saying that we can’t have good discussion of making the world a better place and that sort of thing. But just that theological debate between a convicted theist and convicted atheist may be futile.
Or not. I am trying to imagine the possibility. Is there someplace where that kind of conversation has fruitfully gone on in one of these threads?
Comment by: NCxian
160How did you guys sneak in so many comments while I am sitting here thinking? My last comment should be read somewhere about # 153!
Comment by: Stephan
161I would define evidence as facts that point to a conclusion. You can dispute the veracity of the evidence, or you can dispute as to whether or not they point to the conclusion, but, in my opinion, you cannot deny that it is evidence.
For instance, if someone uses the Bible as evidence, you can say that you do not trust the source, so the facts are in question.
If someone says the sunrise points to the existence of God, you cannot dispute the fact that the sun rises, but you can dispute whether or not it points to God.
In this case, we are all judges, and we all decide which evidence we will admit into our courts. Combine that with our preconceived ideas that we cannot escape, and you come up with your own verdict.
Comment by: Stephan
162I would say the “verdict” you come to is the belief. I forgot to define that above. Sorry.
Comment by: TXatheist
163I’ll say it this way. The sun rising will happen tomorrow for atheists and for theists. Our beliefs make no difference on that event.
Ok, but taking this one step further for the point. It wasn’t God but Allah that made the sun rise. He is all and does all. There are false ideas in false books about the sun but it’s truly Allah that makes the sun rise. The evidence is there for you to accept. Denying Allah does not change the sun rising as Allah wills it to rise and we should all thank Allah.
Comment by: Stephan
164TX, I’m not saying that the sun rising is evidence that my concept of God is true. I’m giving that as a very simplistic example of evidence that some people might think points to the fact that God exists, in some form.
I’m not debating you here. I’m just saying we look at the same facts (evidence) and reach different conclusions (beliefs).
Comment by: TXatheist
165ok, I do understand now.
Comment by: TXatheist
166Stephan or other xians,
Do you agree with this?
The fact that the sun rises everyday and keeps life sustainable on earth is why I believe in God.
Anyone theist say no to this?
Comment by: NCxian
167TXatheist:
No.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
168Epiphany asked:I’m curious as to why some people do not believe there is hell… I’ve heard arguments where people don’t want to believe in a loving God who would create a hell
I heard a sermon about this that explained that hell was created BECAUSE God loves us. It depends on how you define hell though. One can look at hell as separation from God. Because He gave us free will, we have the ability to reject Him and thus choose hell for ourselves. To accept this you would have to dispense with the idea that good deeds get you into to heaven and hell is the ultimate punishment for being bad. I see this latter idea as a children’s version of the story.
Comment by: Stephan
169TX, no that is not what I believe in God.
Comment by: TXatheist
170Alright,now I don’t understand again
NCxian and Stephan,
Please adjust my statement/question to where the answer changes to yes:)
Comment by: NCxian
171I believe in God because I have this feeling that I am not alone in my body (plus various environmental factors that cause me to interpret this feeling in the way I do). Now, join me, TX as we, together, bang our heads against the wall. :)
Comment by: TXatheist
172NCxian,
I understand that idea. It was the sun rising message I was on track and then realized I was not saying something right but couldn’t figure out what it was.
Comment by: Stephan
173TX, my reasons for believing in God are varied and complex. I really can’t boil it down to something I can blog. All I can say is that, based on the evidence I have seen in the world, I believe there is a god, and based on my understanding of world religions, I believe the God of Christianity best fits what I see.
I was merely using the sun rising as a metaphor for whatever people want to use as evidence for the existence of a god. I hope you really didn’t think my belief was that simple.
Comment by: NCxian
174Sorry, TX. I seem to have jumped into something over my head. I’ll leave it to you and Stephan. (That’s not a smart-aleck response, I really mean it. I don’t know what the sun-rising thing is about.)
Comment by: TXatheist
175Fair enough, I just have a real issue with the words evidence and proof when speaking of god.
Comment by: Stephan
176TX, This is the last I will say on the topic. I believe there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, but there is no proof.
Comment by: TXatheist
177Stephan,
We will have to agree to disagree. There is zero evidence for any god.
Comment by: Ir
178TXatheist, don’t you mean in my opinion there is zero evidence for any god?
Comment by: TXatheist
179If there is any evidence for any god please submit your evidence to the appropriate university department for examination. James Randi also gives $1M for testable evidence for the supernatural. In my opinion, there are people who do not understand evidence and give credit to god for things of nature to which they don’t understand. Thanks Ir:)
Comment by: Stephan
180TX, let me ask another way. Show me the origin of matter from a scientific standpoint and I will stop believing in God. Create matter from nothing and I will stop believing in God. Create one new law of physics and I will stop believing in God. I simply cannot believe these things can exist without a creator, and that, to me, points to God.
Comment by: TXatheist
181Stephan,
Singularity, it wasn’t nothing, quantum mechanics isn’t done being understood nor the string(everything)theory. I completely agree with you in your line of thinking in the last sentence from my xian days.
Comment by: Ir
182Do you mean that, Stephan? I would have thought that you have other reasons for believing in God also.
Comment by: TXatheist
183Ir,
I honestly believe Stephan does have much, much more reasons for believing. Stephan, I believe it was you that said it’s too long to blog so feel free to or not to at your discretion. :)
Comment by: Stephan
184Yeah, there’s much more to it, but my point was that I don’t believe science will solve the origin of things. It can measure what’s already there, but it cannot show why it’s there or how it got there.
Briefly, some other reasons I believe:
1. Personal experiences of God.
2. Testimony of others I trust regarding their experiences with God.
3. The amazing intricacy of nature that, I believe, points to a creator.
4. My belief that the Bible is a reasonably accurate historical document.
I could expound ad nauseum on any of those points, and I’m sure there are other points I could add. I also realize that any of these are debatable, and doubtless TX would not accept them as valid. To me, the weight of these (and other factors) leads me to believe that God exists.
Comment by: Ir
185Stephan, thanks for clarifying.
Comment by: Susan Todd
186I read some of the blog, wish I could read more. But I use to be an atheist and lived in a void and
darkened world. I fought off all those who wanted
to share their faith with me. To make it short,
until the day came when no other person could help
me, I was alone, I took a step in faith and reached out in a sincere prayer to God. My prayer
was answered in His way and since then I grew in
faith and His word in the bible and I am reaping
the joy in my soul that I can not explain, that
comes from God’s Holy Spirit. The world is not
looking for the Holy Spirit, who is the pipe line
to God. I hope all who do not know God would re-
member we could not be a happening without a
master plan, we humans are a walking, talking
miracle. Those who will come to Jesus will live
forever as I have found out for myself.
Sue Todd