Atheists vs. Christians

Originally posted by epiphinehas
And this is precisely where I disagree with you. I understand that Christianity is a dead option for you, so I won't waste my time engaging in apologetics. [/b]

I for one would welcome actual apologetics if any of the self-professing Xians here could present a logical and reasonable defense of the authority of Scripture. Although I've seen many theological arguments, and more quarrels, I've yet to see a competent exposition of apologetics.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I for one would welcome actual apologetics if any of the self-professing Xians here could present a logical and reasonable defense of the authority of Scripture. Although I've seen many theological arguments, and more quarrels, I've yet to see a competent exposition of apologetics.

Where shall we begin?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Where shall we begin?

Start anywhere. It has been decades since I read The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable by F.F Bruce and several fat books attempting to refute the JEDP hypothesis.

BTW, if Josh McDowell's weak syllogisms and tortured logic are your notion of apologetics, don't even bother. I've graduated college a few times and won't fall prey to junior high persuasion.

I should also admit that I don't read Hebrew and my Greek is very weak.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Start anywhere. It has been decades since I read The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable by F.F Bruce and several fat books attempting to refute the JEDP hypothesis.

BTW, if Josh McDowell's weak syllogisms and tortured logic are your notion of apologetics, don't even bother. I've graduated college a few times and won't fall prey to junior high persuasion.

I should also admit that I don't read Hebrew and my Greek is very weak.

My goodness. Anywhere?

How about this: I'm working on a thread entitled "RHP faith clinic" devoted to apologetics. My goal or aim in that thread is to employ only "reason" in defense of Christian truth. However, I'm currently working on the ground rules for such an engagement, in order to satisfy (as far as is possible) the Lemonjellos and Bbarrs of this forum. I make no guarantees about whether or not I'll be successful in persuading you. Personally, I don't put much stock in apologetics as it is. But if you're genuinely interested, I'll do what I can.

BTW, I've never heard of Josh McDowell.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My goodness. Anywhere?

How about this: I'm working on a thread entitled "RHP faith clinic" devoted to apologetics. My goal or aim in that thread is to employ only "reason" in defense of Christian truth. However, I'm currently working on the ground rules for such an engagement, in order to satisfy (as far as is possible) the Lemonjellos and Bbarrs o genuinely interested, I'll do what I can.

BTW, I've never heard of Josh McDowell.

Don't waste your time with ground rules. Just put your argument out there at let the vermin attack. If you can offer reasonable defense of your position, you will gain a modicum of respect.


The word clinic in the same phrase as faith is enough to keep me from reading the thread, just as I avoided this one for quite a few days because of the false dichotomy it invokes.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]My intention was to show that your theological thesis is used from another religions too (just as your religion derived from another religions too), because the aim of every decent theist regardless his religion is to become a man of righteousness and virtue as you theologically mean it.

And this is precisely where I disagree with you. I under ...[text shortened]... rent. If you are as impartial as you claim, I don't see how you could fail to recognize this.[/b]

Dear Epi,

"The completely unique" spec is just a different approach, the aim remains as I said the same. The main aim of your religion is to promote the Human by specific means in order to help him ascend and to achieve the ability to become part of your "god". These means they vary from religion to religion but the difference has to do with the required technique of each dogma.

The -based on OT- need of the believer to be considered as a "chosen" is obvious and it lacks of any philosophical quality. It seems that the tribe, which considered the OT as "objectively true", was actually trying to provide its members with a doctrine in order to promote the dogma of the "chosen". That's why everybody who follows it he is a "chosen" too, while the one who objects it he is an unbeliever and therefore a "not chosen" (of course noone inside the tribe has the right to oppose or critisize this thesis because it is de facto "the word of god", whilst the ones that are not members of the tribe are a priori "non chosen" unbelievers).

But this profound discrimination was not enough for the big minds that compiled the OT. And so came aboard John with the incredible 1J 4:2-3 -what a software! John offered us happily a piece of a very vital information:
-- "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world".

So everyone who is "not truly born by God" -ie your specific "god"😉, is invaded by the spirit of Antichrist!

Your religion is deep down in a sea of blood of innocent people, judged and killed on the spot by morons which they held them fully responsible for being not "true Christians". But you look kinda unaware of this. History shows that in order to achieve your so called holy aim you did everything with no remorse.
In your opinion the sole issue of importance is the technique regarding the "truly born by God" process. In my opinion the sole thing that matters is the deep respect for Life and the quality of the compassion. So I oppose this religionism of the OT using the common sense. This dangerous discrimination on question is of course obvious to you too, but due to your innability to deny this fact you try to apologise quoting that you have not other way "because it is objectively true" (for You). BS!🙂

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Happiness is overrated

It's good to be happy from time to time

Originally posted by black beetle
Dear Epi,

"The completely unique" spec is just a different approach, the aim remains as I said the same. The main aim of your religion is to promote the Human by specific means in order to help him ascend and to achieve the ability to become part of your "god". These means they vary from religion to religion but the difference has to do with the req e not other way "because it is objectively true" (for You). BS!🙂

"The completely unique" spec is just a different approach, the aim remains as I said the same.

It is recorded in the book of Acts that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter healed a lame man (3:1-11), a palsied man (9:33-34), raised Tabitha from the dead (9:36-41), Paul healed multitudes at Corinth (19:11-12) and at Malta (28:7-9), etc., etc. The Holy Spirit also gave other gifts to those who received Christ by faith:

"To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines" (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).

The power of the Holy Spirit is real. It transforms people. Through Peter and Paul the Holy Spirit healed people and raised the dead (not to mention what the Holy Spirit achieved through Jesus). This invisible entity described in the NT is not a dogmatic "approach", or a mere means to an end, nor a "technique". Whether or not you believe these events actually took place doesn't matter. The fact is, what is revealed in the NT about the Holy Spirit shows an absolutely unique ministry in the lives of believers.

If you're looking for an impartation of real power from above, Christ's gospel is the only game in town. That's what the NT, in fact, promises. What is it comparable to?

But you look kinda unaware of this. History shows that in order to achieve your so called holy aim you did everything with no remorse.

Yep, I'm quite unaware of killing innocent people for "my" religion. Please, explain how a non-denominational bible-believing individual like myself is in any way associated with the atrocities of the Catholic inquisition. While you're at it, explain how the Catholic inquisition is in any way substantiated by the teachings of Christ or his disciples.

In your opinion the sole issue of importance is the technique regarding the "truly born by God" process.

Again, describing the ministry of the Holy Spirit as a "technique" belies a misconstrued understanding of what is actually revealed in scripture. It does not require any faith to see that the authors did not intend "born-again" to be understood as a "technique".

In my opinion the sole thing that matters is the deep respect for Life and the quality of the compassion. So I oppose this religionism of the OT using the common sense.

I see. You're not interested in whether the Bible is true or not.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]"The completely unique" spec is just a different approach, the aim remains as I said the same.

It is recorded in the book of Acts that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter healed a lame man (3:1-11), a palsied man (9:33-34), raised Tabitha from the dead (9:36-41), Paul healed multitudes at Corinth (19:11-12) and at Malta (28:7-9), etc., etc. ...[text shortened]... ]

I see. You're not interested in whether the Bible is true or not.[/b]

The book of Acts is precious for you but you cannot claim that this thesis is "objectively true". This is clearly a theological thesis and as such it does not contain the quality of the objectivity. I am ready to hear your comments over this issue -but kindly please don't give me another sermon.

Furthermore, I never said that you in person are responsible for the atrocities of the Catholic inquisition -I don't even know your denomination, but even if I knew it I am aware of the fact that back then you were not born. A Christian is Christian regardless his denomination. A Muslim is Muslim regardless his denomination. An atheist is an atheist regardless his ...denomination (Maoist, Stalinist, Zennist etc.)!
But I do said and still claim that the religionists -all of them, regardless their religion and their denomination- are dangerous, Christians included. The Catholics are Christians too, and many of them are as decent as any other Christian although according to your thesis they are not "truly born by God" Christians.
On the other hand, the believers of each Christian denomination have exactly the same belief as you: they are quite sure that they are "true Christians" and that everybody else of every other denomination is not; each denomination has a different theological approach but this does not change the fact that the men dressed in Christ's black did what they did "in the name of God", which accidentally is your God too. Or not?

Regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit: earlier you explained how the authors intend the "born-again" issue to be understood. Due to this explanation it is obvious that without the Holy Spirit one cannot be "truly born by God" and therefore he cannot become a part of God. This is the essential part of the thesis. Well Epi, I posted you earlier my opinion regarding this issue and it is meaningless to post it to you again. You are free to call it not "technique"; but without this essential part, without this mystery or miracle or whatever (call it as you like) one ends up separated from Your God. And in such a case you claim that his virtue "...cannot hold a candle..." etc. Excellent.

And now the Bible: yes my friend Epi, over here we agree. I am indifferent to the Bible. I am sure that any human being can be decent, full of Love, with a heart full of compassion and a spirit full of deep respect for Life. One can gain all these virtues allright -with or without the "good book", regardless if he is "truly born by God Christian" or not, regardless of his religion.

Originally posted by black beetle

But I do said and still claim that the religionists -all of them, regardless their religion and their denomination- are dangerous,

It goes without saying that atheists are religionists in this context.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
It goes without saying that atheists are religionists in this context.

Sure they are, Coach;

Originally posted by black beetle
Sure they are, Coach;

and make no mistake, atheists are terribly dangerous to themselves as much as to the rest of us

Originally posted by Wulebgr
and make no mistake, atheists are terribly dangerous to themselves as much as to the rest of us

If they are religionists they do are dangerous to themselves and to everybody else;