Originally posted by josephwWhat if you are the one who has it all wrong?
I'd rather debate a spiritually blind atheist than a brainwashed cult follower.
Why? Because an atheist is a clean slate, but a cultist is full of false doctrine.
It is easier to heal the blind than a meandering fool.
And the "cult" is correct.
Why are you right?
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your debate with the atheist would probably be more fruitful if you didn't start from the false premise that he was 'spiritually blind.' (Or that he suffered from a malady from which he needed to be healed).
From the atheist's point of view, it is not that he 'can't see' but rather that there is nothing to see in the first place. Hardly a diagnosis for blindness.
While being called "spiritually blind" could be offensive I think you should consider this:
You have to use the RIGHT organ to substantiate certain things.
I cannot taste music because my tongue is not the right organ. What I need to do is use my ears.
I cannot smell the color blue or purple. The nose is marvelous. But the nose is not the proper organ to substantiate what "BLUE" is or what "PURPLE" is. Now if your EYES are used, the reality of the colors can be substantiated and experienced.
Do you agree up to here?
After you get over the initial sense of being slighted by being called "spiritually blind" you might consider just a little that we ALL come into this world in need of healing from a spiritual blindness.
But I understand the annoyance at being told this. I was offended when some Christian girl I was dating told me that I was "a lost sheep". I did not like this chick telling ME that I was a "lost sheep" just because I didn't believe in her God. If she wanted to introduce me to Christ she also seemed to get off to a very bad start.
Latter I did find out that that tackless, rude, blunt girl had told me the truth.
It turned out that I realized that I had indeed been like a "lost sheep" when Jesus came to me.
But a struggle ensued between the time I was called a "lost sheep" and the night I surrendered my heart to Jesus as Lord.
Originally posted by josephwThe authority of the bible which just happens to be the correct one. Surprise Surprise!
[b]"I am not in denial of the truth, just your version of truth."
My version of the truth? Don't be obtuse Ghost. The truth I believe is clearly delineated in the Bible. That's the truth you don't believe. You've already demonstrated you know what the Bible means by what it says. You're not stupid, and you're not brainwashed by false doctrine. You sim ...[text shortened]... he truth on the authority of the Bible and the clear testimony of the existence of the universe.[/b]
(40 000 denominations, duh :p )
Originally posted by SuzianneYou're right. tom did have a slightly different wording ... not that I can remember it 😀
The "full" adds nothing to the joke.
Try this:
"I'd rather have a [b]FREE bottle in front of me than a PRE-frontal lobotomy."
As I said, the origin of this, as well as the wording, seems to depend on who you're asking.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadHence one of my very earliest questions here as to why athiests post here.
Sadly us atheists have no choice but to debate brainwashed cult followers. Debating fellow atheists on matters of spirituality usually doesn't go very far.
I was quickly corrected, and reminded that Buddhism is considered atheist by many 😉