http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html

Excerpt:

When Christians make a distinction between a person's mind and a person's 'heart', this is the issue they are addressing. The logic of the mind can come up with any number of moral, rational options, but the 'heart', that part of the mind that is above logic, is what makes the decision. What allows the heart to make a decision for the 'good' depends upon the goodness that is present in it. While that sounds circular, I believe it is circular only because it is true. Consider the following example:

(Matthew 20:1-16) A vineyard owner hires 10 men to work in his fields from sunup until sundown and agrees to pay them $100.00 for their efforts. As evening approaches, he hires 10 more men to work the last several hours but pays them the same amount as the men who have worked all day. The first group of men is irked that the other group of men received the same pay. Judge the actions of the vineyard owner; was what he did right or wrong?

When I saw that parable, at first I thought the vineyard owner was unfair and I sided with the first group of men. The more I thought about it, however, I began to realize that my selfish nature was influencing my perception of the vineyard owner. Why couldn't I find joy in the idea that the other 10 men would be able to provide for their families as much as I could for my own? The vineyard owner had paid me what he had promised, so he had treated me justly. It was only my jealousy concerning his generosity that caused me to gripe. After going through countless paradoxes of morality in scripture, I concluded that selfishness (sin) is what blinds us to an accurate perception of what constitutes good'. Therefore, the only person who could know what was good would be one who was completely unselfish (sinless).


Praise God for witnesses like him.

Originally posted by Darfius
http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html

Excerpt:

When Christians make a distinction between a person's mind and a person's 'heart', this is the issue they are addressing. The logic of the mind can come up with any number of moral, rational options, but the 'heart', that part of the mind that is above logic, is what makes the d ...[text shortened]... would be one who was completely unselfish (sinless).


Praise God for witnesses like him.

Originally posted by telerion
This person was never an atheist. A "True Atheist" would never make such illogical statements.

Another excerpt (from response to rebuttal):

So in your OPINION, a divinely inspired text would have to be inerrant. In my OPINION, it does not. We both have our opinionated reasons for believing what we believe.

In my opinion, the errors are irrelevant.

Allow me to quote myself. Not all of the paradoxes found in the Bible are relevant, but serve as arrows to direct the reader toward higher meaning. The accounts of the death of Judas and many other alleged discrepancies are irrelevant to the truth of God, yet they serve as stumbling blocks to those who are shallow or legalistic in their thought. In this way, the Word of God becomes a sieve, separating its readers through a series of screens. Paul describes this sieve in 1 Cor: 1. Those who have made themselves too big, too self-righteous, get trapped in the holes, while those who have allowed themselves to be made small, pass through to see the hidden truth. Jesus Christ makes reference to his own device of conveying God's truth in parables (Luke 8:10) so that "...though hearing, they may not understand."

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to you that Friedrich Nietzsche, poster boy for existentialism, was very fond of intentionally using words that would be misinterpreted by careless, superficial readers. Walter Kaufmann, who edited Nietzsche's 'Ecce Homo', included this in his introduction:

"Nietzsche had an almost pathological weakness for one particular kind of ambiguity, which, to be sure, is not irremediable: he loved words and phrases that mean one thing out of context and almost the opposite in the context he gives them... The former is bound to lead astray hasty readers, browsers and...nonreaders."

When a man does this type of thing, it is considered a matter of genius. When similar devices are employed in the bible, there is no reason to discount them as foolishness. Of course, it is not the 'hasty' reader that is being sifted out in the Bible, but the spiritual Pharisee who is being left in the dark.”

The reason for introducing these apparent errors, or allowing irrelevant errors, can be found in the Zen philosophy. The Masters of Zen don't seek to enlighten their students with the truth; they seek to confound them in order that they discover the truth for themselves. Herein lies the difference between knowing how to do multiplication and merely memorizing and regurgitating multiplication tables. If the truth about God could be told, we could know ABOUT Him, but in seeking and finding Him for ourselves, we can KNOW Him.

The logic in the errors is thus: The errors expose our non-spiritual, Pharisaical, self-righteous way of thinking. We will deny the spiritual need of repentance because bats are mammals, not birds. We will scoff at and make fun of a man dying on a cross because a whale is anatomically incapable of swallowing a man, who subsequently survives the ingestion. We will continue on in our self-righteous glory, because Moses was a murderer, David was an adulterer and murderer and because Lot played hanky panky with his daughters. In other words, God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves.

Originally posted by Darfius
Check out the site, an atheist rebuts him and he rebuts back.

I'd ask you to be objective, but...

Originally posted by telerion
Jesus H. Christ Esquire III! Obviously, I'm joking, Father.

So the person used to lack a belief in at least one god; now the person has a belief in a particular god. Happens everyday. It's the flow that matters, not the stock.

Originally posted by telerion
This person was never an atheist. A "True Atheist" would never make such illogical statements.

Originally posted by Darfius
Why are you being intentionally offensive?

That's not a morally neutral act.

Originally posted by telerion
Which part was offensive? The Word of the Atheist is offensive to the fundamentalist believer.

Originally posted by Darfius
Let go of your pride, tel. Join me in fellowship for eternity. Worship your Father with love. It's so much better than the hatred that consumes you. I'm not being condescending. Just giving you a virtual hug. 😏

Originally posted by telerion
<serious hat on>Thanks for the hug. Hey, if I could I'd be right there. Unfortunately, for me right now, that would amount to lying to myself; and I'm not prepared to due that. I'll keep it in mind though if circumstances change.
<serious hat off>

Until that time, if it should ever come, I will continue to launch a full assault on your posts, which I deem to be crazy and/or hateful. Oh, and I may stop if I lose interest.

Originally posted by Darfius
Let go of your pride, tel. Join me in fellowship for eternity. Worship your Father with love. It's so much better than the hatred that consumes you. I'm not being condescending. Just giving you a virtual hug. 😏

Originally posted by kirksey957
If my memory serves me correctly, this post was astoundingly close to Darth Vader's appeal to Luke in Star Wars asking him to come to the dark side.

Originally posted by kirksey957
If my memory serves me correctly, this post was astoundingly close to Darth Vader's appeal to Luke in Star Wars asking him to come to the dark side.

Originally posted by Darfius
Another excerpt (from response to rebuttal):

So in your OPINION, a divinely inspired text would have to be inerrant. In my OPINION, it does not. We both have our opinionated reasons for believing what we believe.

In my opinion, the errors are irrelevant.

Allow me to quote myself. Not all of the paradoxes found in the Bible are relevant, but serv ...[text shortened]... ky panky with his daughters. In other words, God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves.