How to convert a skeptic - written for the faithful by a skeptic

March 16th, 2008, 10:00 AM

Actually dear I've had a very nice, priveleged life!

Seeing as you are a tad hung up on the Nazi's what percentage of them came from good, pious Christian families and went to either Lutheran or Catholic schools and/or catechism clases? Somewhere around 90% would be my estimate.

You seem to have a short attention span. I asked you what verses of the bible your Jesus has written and how you know that an illiterate carpenter did so.Still waiting!

March 16th, 2008, 10:30 AM

Guess that just goes to show 'success in no guarantee of being happy'.

Actually my Grandfather came from there in 1900, he was wise enough to see what **** was coming down.

I have no idea of the ratio, didn't your Church brag to you about those kinds of numbers when they were kicking you down the isle?

They should have read you a few verses, Jesus read from Scripture on more than one occasion, so you are either ignorant of that fact or you kept their habit of lying your face off at every opportunity you can find

March 16th, 2008, 10:33 AM

I can see yer getting DESPERATE.

You said Jesus wrote biblical verse.

All we're asking for is that you prove it/demonstrate your statement as being true.

You can do that, can't you?

March 16th, 2008, 10:46 AM

There you are again, back to being a 'we'.
Could He read or not?
You're right, He didn't hold the pen, His hands were doing the deeds that were later written about and He only spoke the words that were written down, which still makes Him more important than you or I who can write but cannot know what to write about things that will be nor things that contain wisdom as our wisdom comes from things that He had others write for us.
Now go watch the video that shows what your atheist brothers are capable of inflicting on those they call their own as well as those they perceive as the enemy, there doesn't seem to be any difference.

March 16th, 2008, 10:54 AM

Well, well.

He was writing 45 minutes ago, according to you, and now he wasn't.

You really don't have the slightest understanding about your own religion, do you?

And here you are on this Forum trying to convert others to your beliefs.

What's that old saying about if you want to see true ignorance, just scratch a Christian?

March 16th, 2008, 11:18 AM

Okay, back to God writing, if you think Scripture comes in many pages consider if He wrote them all down personally, how mant tablets of stone would that take?
Jesus doesn't write personally on paper, He sticks His finger into you and writes on your heart, a thing that you have not yet experienced.

Who says I'm trying to convert anybody, that's not my 'job', you are more than capable (although that is a fact I am assuming) of working that out, that is between you and God alone.

How many times did you get scratched while being in the 'service'?

March 16th, 2008, 11:27 AM

See, I agree, to a degree. You discuss. You are a treat to discuss the issue with in that respect, compared to some. But, not all 'skeptics' or 'atheists' or whatever (and not all religious either), are here to discuss. They're here just to argue. Now, if a discussion turns into and argument, that's one thing. I think you and I have argued. But it's usually based in a discussion. It's such a fine line.

March 16th, 2008, 12:36 PM

Wouldn't the basic reasons skeptics and religionists have for their stance on things pre-determine if a discussion can/should even take place. From a religionists POV I certainly can't prove God exists and if a skeptic is skeptical of there not being a God because there is no proof it doesn't seem like a discussion can even start. If a person is a skeptic because of the words that are in the Bible lend to being skeptical, be it events cannot happen, or the story-line is too disjointed, or some similar reason and a religionist sees those events as being possible (taking Godly power into account) or that the story-line isn't disjointed then a 'limited discussion' is possible.
If it is just the 'story-line' that is the topic that would seem to be the best environment for a lengthy detailed discussion, lengthy in that a definition of just one word can take pages to fully cover.

Then again, it might be like oil and water, they just aren't meant to be mixed and no amount of effort will bring any good results.

Conversion should never be set as a goal, the best that can be accomplished is that each side gets a better understanding why the other person has the view they have.

March 16th, 2008, 01:24 PM

With what we know about the natural world and the universe I find it hard to believe anyone would think there is a greater being that controls it all but having said that I don't think it is fair for us enlightened individuals to destroy someones faith that gives them comfort in the face of death which is the only real reason religion exsists in the first place, fear of oblivion.

March 16th, 2008, 02:18 PM

I'd probably go to the same lengths as you to avoid death. (killing others might detract from 'is it really worth it', since I'm going to hit the ground sooner or later anyway). The only thing that might separate me from you is that I am under the impression that my own eyes will see the very same things you believe only your future descendants will see.

March 16th, 2008, 06:08 PM

Thick as bricks!

Until this morning you thought Jesus wrote Scripture and then it was " well, no I guess he didn't put pen to paper'''.

Grade 6 education?

March 16th, 2008, 06:38 PM

Gee grumpy even you should be aware than one person can have another type up a document for them without having to 'give up' authorship? Whose words do the quotes directly attributed to what Jesus said in the 1st four books of the NT belong to? Who do the words that the comforter brought to any writer belong to? When a prophecy was shown in vision or in words who does that vision or words belong to?
When you quote (and actually put a name with the quote) somebody who do those words belong to?
If you add or subtract to the words in Revelation, who do you think is going to be escorting you out of the building, the one who wrote the words or the one who said the words that were written down?

I'll have you know 4 of the best years of my life were spent in the 6th grade. lol

March 16th, 2008, 06:52 PM

Funny to see silly degenerate in to just plain stupid.

March 16th, 2008, 06:54 PM

Keep it off the personal attacks and stick to debating the issues.

March 16th, 2008, 06:58 PM

I did give you praise a while back because I saw allot of good sense in your observations.

And this new opening statement/thread attests to that.

And all of it because you have been and experienced both sides of the issue of God's existence.

There are others as well, who have done so to, like mrgrumpy, Dexter to name a few.

I consider you/them very intelligent and articulate folk.

The only and best thing that I have to share is my knowledge of revelation about the bible's mysteries which are hard to understand and which are a source of ridicule, belittlement and total disregard for the existence of God.

Having understanding places me in one of two positions: one, I could use my knowledge for my own gain, look down on my brethren and gloat, make money writing books, fleece a congregation of all their money and just simply, become a religion.

And two, I could shed light on some of the the mysteries of the bible with great compassion for the ones in the dark.

I chose the latter.

For there I can help some, not all, come to some understanding of how great and good God is.

If I can not convince a skeptic to reconsider at looking at their previous knowledge of the bible from a different angle, and still remain a skeptic, then that is all I can do.

But, you have a good argument against religionists making blind faith dogmatic declarations, as well as an argument against the skeptic with their insistence on shear proof.

If proof was all there was to having faith in God, then, God fails us, because Godly proof can only be felt in the heart.

Jesus was accused of being the King of the Jews, and if king, it would have been natural for Him to have exercised power to defend, to protect Him self or to have set up an earthly kingdom.

But His kingship was and is not of this world, but is in the hearts of mankind.

Therefore, proof of God's existence can only be in the heart of man as entrance into that heavenly Kingdom while yet still living and breathing in the flesh.

All the kings man and all the Kings horses could not put Humpty Dumpy back together again, for it was not in the pieces that made up Humpty-dumpy, but in who he was.

He had a great fall, (a similitude, if you will of Jesus, as Jesus being cast down) and only God Himself could put Humpty dumpy back together again.

The pieces, are all of us, back into one body, and God saving the whole.

Peace>>>AJ

March 17th, 2008, 01:04 AM

Good for you, but I think you're confusing knowledge with belief, and some people might find your characterization of people who don't believe as you do as being "in the dark" a little condescending, if not actively offensive. You may not be right.

No rational skeptic demands proof of god's existence, though plenty of irrational skeptics do, and to forestall the obvious reply I'll immediately concede that I've made that mistake myself more than once in the heat of the moment. A rational skeptic knows such proof is not possible, unless god himself steps in and provides unequivocal proof of his presence. And that would have to be something pretty dramatic. I'd be satisfied with some good evidence and a sound inductive argument that shows god's existence to be the most likely correct conclusion from it. I've never seen that. I've seen lots of unsound arguments and unverifiable evidence, and lots of evidence with much simpler explanations, but never anything that points with a higher probability than anything else at the conclusion that god exists.

You say it can only be felt in the heart. That makes it a uniquely individual and private experience, not something you can point at that I can see. All I can get is your report on your feelings and your interpretation of them, which may not be correct. That's not evidence, that's an anecdote, and there are plausible and prosaic explanations for it that don't involve postulating a deity.

March 17th, 2008, 07:07 AM

The Bible does use that term to describe people who do not have have certain knowledge about the Bible. Just who that covers and who that does not cover could be a topic of debate. The Bible also uses the term children of light to describe those who would be the opposite of the children of darkness.
At the easiest level, a person would move from darkness to light by having knowledge that there is something called salvation, and physical death is not a barrier. That would mean the only ones who are in the dark are those who have never heard of the Bible. At it's harshest meaning it could include just about everybody, Bible readers included. If Scripture has but one single meaning then as soon as there are two doctrines then somebody is in the dark. Scripture also says there will be a falling away before the man of sin makes his appearance. If there is only one meaning then falling away doesn't have to mean people are leaving the Church it can mean what is being taught in the Church is a falling away from what Scripture originally taught. The chapter that explains that also says the 'mystery of iniquity' was at work even back then, no doubt having made bigger inroads since then. Staying with the harshest meaning, if Scripture was the guide book to getting through those last years alive then if you have latched onto the wrong doctrine your chances take a real drop. One of Jesus's teachings says that when you are in Judea and you see an apostrophe spoken of in Daniel it is time to head for the hills, like right then, don't even grab a coat if it takes you off the most direct route. If you do you will get killed. Since there are two chapters in Daniel that have such an event you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right one, or more properly being taught which is the right one. Anybody being taught the 7 year trib doctrine is not being shown the right chapter.
When trying to make heads or tails out of the Bible you also have to go with what is being defined in those words, the character of Satan being one such example, if he is somebody other than a fallen angel that is actually not at all fond of man then you are in darkness about who he is.

We only have this little book to work with, if nobody has found any physical evidence in 2000 years there isn't going to be anything turn up. The only thing I can think of as being even close to evidence is already in our hands. It takes all 66 books to get the full picture of what God says just about what will happen in the last few years. Okay, you might not need the 1st couple, but certainly as far back as when Moses was cruising around.
Either some men started a story back then (everything the next generations had to work with, concerning God, are the very same words we have today) and successive generations kept building on that same story (the last few years) and adding to it or God had the whole story from the beginning and gave a little bit to each of those generations.
Deuteronomy says sincere prayer will be useful, even in the tribulation that will come in the latter years.
Job introduces a resurrection from death back to life.
Etc. because it could be made into a very long list.
Revelation gives the length of that trib, and the two stages of people being resurrected. None of the books can be tied together without Revelation, it's the index to the latter days, the words written about the details of the latter days go back to Moses. If you can tie that all together (in a logical manner) does that point to it could only be written that way if their was one single author?

That still isn't proof but it certainly should move the Bible up a notch or two from being a collection of unrelated myths.

March 17th, 2008, 10:03 AM

Actually, no it doesn't. Not only is that not proof, it's not evidence either, because it starts with an unexplained and unjustifiable assumption that it's all literally true. This is one of those cases where there are much simpler explanations. The Bible is much more comprehensible if you take it to be the writings of many men over many years, with many agendas. None of them had any idea their works would ever be assembled into a single document, though many of them clearly had read other parts of it before writing their own stuff. At one stroke that explains all the many errors and inconsistencies, and renders any attempt to rationalize them all both futile and not necessary. They're simply human errors and misunderstandings and ignorance.

I have a particular concern with the Last Days stuff. Every generation since Revelation entered the canon has had people who think it applies to their own time and the near future, which I think is dangerous and absurd, especially now. How many of the last half dozen or so U.S. Presidents have believed this stuff? The current one certainly does and I have no doubt he thinks he's doing god's work in Iraq as part of the run up to the Last Days. I believe his father did, Reagan did, and Carter did. This is the guy with his finger on the trigger of a system that can actually end the world, and if he believes that's what god wants him to do as part of the great plan, he'll do it. If a person believes in a supposed prophecy and is in a position to make it come true, what can we expect to happen? But if in fact the prophecy has been misunderstood, or has nothing to do with reality, it's just the fevered rantings of a very angry and bloody-minded crackpot--which is certainly one possible interpretation of Revelation--then we're heading for self-immolation for the stupidest of reasons.