Evangelion wrote[True! But this does not stop them wandering away of their own accord.]
Let us allow Jesus explain this situation.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Those who are truly in a relationship with Jesus Christ will not be lost. Jesus was plain about this. If a person who has saving faith could somehow become un born spiritually and have the seal of the Holy Ghost broken then salvation is conditional on "their" performance to stay saved and Jesus died in vain. Eternal life is not based on our ability to keep it or to do anything to loose it. Salvation is based on faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ in his death buriel and resurrection from the dead. Not on our own righteousness or works.
Jesus also knew those who were his and those who were tag alongs or the religious followers. They had religion which will not save verses a relationship with Christ which will save.
Jesus said his words were spirit. Without the Holy Ghost convicting drawing and revealing truth to a person they can not be saved. Going to church, sunday school, being baptised, being confirmed, making communion,being good will not get you into heaven. Jesus said salvation is a narrow path and few who find it. Many are on the broad road of religion that is a highway to hell and many religious people who claim the name of Jesus are going to bust hell wide open as well as those "enlightened" ones who say no God.
and Evangelion said [Jesus chose Judas as one of his disciples, but Judas betrayed him.]
Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Jesus knew Judas was not a believer from the beginning. Judas was never saved at any point. He was a devil. Judas played a good game he looked like a disciple walked talked acted like the others but was never a believer. He was a counterfit Christian who never had the change of heart it takes to believe in Christ as Saviour and Lord. Did this take Jesus by suprise? No Jesus knew Judas Iscariots heart and it was hard from unbelief.
Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!
I requested that further discussion on Calvinism be not conducted at this thread, and that it be resumed, if desired, under the Calvinism heading. This thread is about atheism. Further Calvinism posts on this thread risk being removed. Please, save your effort, and put your posts in the proper category.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Evangelion
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
- Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)
I guess I'll bump in to the discussion since Atheist seems to have abandoned it.Les Wright wrote:Hi Athiest,
[1]My question for you is pretty straightforward... why not be agnostic?
If I rejected Christ, I'd be agnositc, not an athiest as I am not sure that anybody can claim that there is no God with absolute certainty.
I've never been to India, but I've met people who say they have. If I say that India doesn't exist, I'm ignoring or disagreeing with the information that is contrary to my belief.
[2]Likewise, if I believe there is no God, but people say that they have met Him, might I be missing something?
Tx
Les
1. Atheism is not the absolute certainty that there is no God.
Theism - Belief in a God or gods.
Atheism - disbelief in a God or gods.
2. Uh, no, why would you think that?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Modern atheists (lacking the backbone of classic atheists) often claim that the word "atheist" no longer means "one who believes that there is no god," and that it now only means "one who does not believe in a god" (a very different thing!).
This new range of meaning makes no essential distinction between an "atheist" and an "agnostic" (or a "Buddhist," for that matter), since neither believes in a god—and that is (allegedly) all that the word "atheist" implies today.
The authoritative dictionaries apparently have not kept up with the trend in redefinition among modern atheists, because they still give the following definitions:
Atheism: "the belief that God does not exist" (Oxford Dictionary)
Atheist: "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" (Cambridge Dictionary)
Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
If today's atheists want to redefine the word "atheist" so as to allow it to take over the domain formerly belonging to the word "agnostic," then they are obviously free to do so, but I would then wonder:
1. Would it not cause less confusion for them simply to call themselves "agnostics," and allow the real atheists to keep the original word for themselves?
2. Once the word "atheist" is no longer available to mean "one who believes that there is no deity" (its classical meaning), what new word shall we adopt to cover the ground once covered by the word "atheist" (since such people will always be around and may wish to give their position a label)?
Just curious.
This new range of meaning makes no essential distinction between an "atheist" and an "agnostic" (or a "Buddhist," for that matter), since neither believes in a god—and that is (allegedly) all that the word "atheist" implies today.
The authoritative dictionaries apparently have not kept up with the trend in redefinition among modern atheists, because they still give the following definitions:
Atheism: "the belief that God does not exist" (Oxford Dictionary)
Atheist: "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" (Cambridge Dictionary)
Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
If today's atheists want to redefine the word "atheist" so as to allow it to take over the domain formerly belonging to the word "agnostic," then they are obviously free to do so, but I would then wonder:
1. Would it not cause less confusion for them simply to call themselves "agnostics," and allow the real atheists to keep the original word for themselves?
2. Once the word "atheist" is no longer available to mean "one who believes that there is no deity" (its classical meaning), what new word shall we adopt to cover the ground once covered by the word "atheist" (since such people will always be around and may wish to give their position a label)?
Just curious.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Uh, what's the difference between my definition and yours? Agnosticism has nothing to do with it.Steve wrote:Modern atheists (lacking the backbone of classic atheists) often claim that the word "atheist" no longer means "one who believes that there is no god," and that it now only means "one who does not believe in a god" (a very different thing!).
This new range of meaning makes no essential distinction between an "atheist" and an "agnostic" (or a "Buddhist," for that matter), since neither believes in a god—and that is (allegedly) all that the word "atheist" implies today.
The authoritative dictionaries apparently have not kept up with the trend in redefinition among modern atheists, because they still give the following definitions:
Atheism: "the belief that God does not exist" (Oxford Dictionary)
Atheist: "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" (Cambridge Dictionary)
Atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
If today's atheists want to redefine the word "atheist" so as to allow it to take over the domain formerly belonging to the word "agnostic," then they are obviously free to do so, but I would then wonder:
1. Would it not cause less confusion for them simply to call themselves "agnostics," and allow the real atheists to keep the original word for themselves?
2. Once the word "atheist" is no longer available to mean "one who believes that there is no deity" (its classical meaning), what new word shall we adopt to cover the ground once covered by the word "atheist" (since such people will always be around and may wish to give their position a label)?
Just curious.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Asimov,
If you really are not able to tell the difference between the following two statements:
1) "I do not believe in God" (meaning, "I am not committed to belief that there is a god"—i.e., agnosticism)
and
2) "I believe there is no God" (meaning, "I believe and affirm that no god exists"—i.e., atheism)
then we probably will not be able to communicate. Fruitful discussion on an abstract subject requires the ability not to confuse similar words with one another.
The word "agnostic" means "not knowing" (hence, you have declared yourself to be an agnostic, for example, on the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic"). Sometimes it is more respectable to admit ignorance, than to profess knowledge and demonstrate ignorance.
An agnostic, clearly, doesn't claim to know whether God exists or not. Therefore, he/she does not assert that there is or that there is not a God. This is an intellectually respectable position for one to take—at least until he/she has had opportunity to examine the relevant evidences pro and con.
An atheist asserts that there is no God, just as a theist asserts that there is a God. The atheist's assertion is tantamount to claiming to know everything that may exist to be discovered in the universe, and to be able to state with authority that there is "no God there." This position, obviously, is little more than arrogant silliness...in my very humble opinion.
There is no innate arrogance (notwithstanding the atheist's claims to the contrary) in the theist claiming to know that there is a God, since all that would be required to know such a thing is to have encountered God and recognised Him in the encounter.
A scientist may assert, "There exists nowhere on this earth a man who can speak 100 languages fluently." This is quite likely to be true, but is actually unknowable, until one has met every man and learned the limits of his command of foreign languages. On the other hand, if an uneducated house maid were to say, "Actually, I have met a man who speaks over 100 languages," her statement would carry more authority and credibility than would the scientist's conjecture.
When the first Russian cosmonaut returned from space, he reportedly said, "I didn't see God anywhere!" When this declaration was reported to a class of third-graders, a little girl asked, "Was he pure in heart?"
Jesus said that the pure in heart alone may see God. This would explain why so many humans can claim not to have seen Him. They haven't the "eyes" for it.
If most of the world's modern intellectuals were blind from birth, they might indulge in the luxury of claiming that belief in the existence of rainbows was an ancient myth, made-up by pre-scientific man in order to give delight to children, and that the color spectrum really does not exist. Yet one child with a good eye in his head would soon know better whether color exists than would a convention of blind professors.
A blind man might reasonably say, "Though many people say that they have seen color, I have not seen it, and therefore I am not sure whether it exists." This man would be an agnostic with reference to color. If the same man were to say, "I have never seen color; therefore color does not exist!" his position would be as reasonable as is that of the atheist concerning God.
That is the difference between the agnostic and the atheist. Perhaps it will be more obvious now why the Bible refers to the latter (but not necessarily the former) as a "fool."
So, I guess the question is—which are you?
If you really are not able to tell the difference between the following two statements:
1) "I do not believe in God" (meaning, "I am not committed to belief that there is a god"—i.e., agnosticism)
and
2) "I believe there is no God" (meaning, "I believe and affirm that no god exists"—i.e., atheism)
then we probably will not be able to communicate. Fruitful discussion on an abstract subject requires the ability not to confuse similar words with one another.
The word "agnostic" means "not knowing" (hence, you have declared yourself to be an agnostic, for example, on the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic"). Sometimes it is more respectable to admit ignorance, than to profess knowledge and demonstrate ignorance.
An agnostic, clearly, doesn't claim to know whether God exists or not. Therefore, he/she does not assert that there is or that there is not a God. This is an intellectually respectable position for one to take—at least until he/she has had opportunity to examine the relevant evidences pro and con.
An atheist asserts that there is no God, just as a theist asserts that there is a God. The atheist's assertion is tantamount to claiming to know everything that may exist to be discovered in the universe, and to be able to state with authority that there is "no God there." This position, obviously, is little more than arrogant silliness...in my very humble opinion.
There is no innate arrogance (notwithstanding the atheist's claims to the contrary) in the theist claiming to know that there is a God, since all that would be required to know such a thing is to have encountered God and recognised Him in the encounter.
A scientist may assert, "There exists nowhere on this earth a man who can speak 100 languages fluently." This is quite likely to be true, but is actually unknowable, until one has met every man and learned the limits of his command of foreign languages. On the other hand, if an uneducated house maid were to say, "Actually, I have met a man who speaks over 100 languages," her statement would carry more authority and credibility than would the scientist's conjecture.
When the first Russian cosmonaut returned from space, he reportedly said, "I didn't see God anywhere!" When this declaration was reported to a class of third-graders, a little girl asked, "Was he pure in heart?"
Jesus said that the pure in heart alone may see God. This would explain why so many humans can claim not to have seen Him. They haven't the "eyes" for it.
If most of the world's modern intellectuals were blind from birth, they might indulge in the luxury of claiming that belief in the existence of rainbows was an ancient myth, made-up by pre-scientific man in order to give delight to children, and that the color spectrum really does not exist. Yet one child with a good eye in his head would soon know better whether color exists than would a convention of blind professors.
A blind man might reasonably say, "Though many people say that they have seen color, I have not seen it, and therefore I am not sure whether it exists." This man would be an agnostic with reference to color. If the same man were to say, "I have never seen color; therefore color does not exist!" his position would be as reasonable as is that of the atheist concerning God.
That is the difference between the agnostic and the atheist. Perhaps it will be more obvious now why the Bible refers to the latter (but not necessarily the former) as a "fool."
So, I guess the question is—which are you?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
You're applying a false dichotomy here, Steve. And even you define agnosticism differently below from what you apply to above.Steve wrote: If you really are not able to tell the difference between the following two statements:
1) "I do not believe in God" (meaning, "I am not committed to belief that there is a god"—i.e., agnosticism)
and
2) "I believe there is no God" (meaning, "I believe and affirm that no god exists"—i.e., atheism)
then we probably will not be able to communicate. Fruitful discussion on an abstract subject requires the ability not to confuse similar words with one another.
I do not believe in God is the same thing as I believe there is no God. Changing around the words is a semantical game.
Your definition of agnosticism is "not knowing whether or not there is a God".
Since when does knowledge = belief?
I do not believe God exists, yet I do not know if God exists. How is that mutually exclusive?
Atheism is not a claim of absolutes. It's a claim of belief.
Essentially, everyone is an agnostic because nobody can demonstrate knowledge of God.
Huh? Where do you get that from? Let me reiterate where you are confusing the issues. Atheism is not a claim of knowledge. It's a claim of belief.An atheist asserts that there is no God, just as a theist asserts that there is a God. The atheist's assertion is tantamount to claiming to know everything that may exist to be discovered in the universe, and to be able to state with authority that there is "no God there." This position, obviously, is little more than arrogant silliness...in my very humble opinion.
So?When the first Russian cosmonaut returned from space, he reportedly said, "I didn't see God anywhere!" When this declaration was reported to a class of third-graders, a little girl asked, "Was he pure in heart?"
So?Jesus said that the pure in heart alone may see God. This would explain why so many humans can claim not to have seen Him. They haven't the "eyes" for it.
Ah, I am so humbled by your false dichotomy and your misapplication of knowledge and belief.That is the difference between the agnostic and the atheist. Perhaps it will be more obvious now why the Bible refers to the latter (but not necessarily the former) as a "fool."
So, I guess the question is—which are you?
I can redundantly label myself an agnostic atheist, since I do not know if there is a God but I do not believe that there is one.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Asimov,
You wrote:
"I do not believe in God is the same thing as I believe there is no God."
Not so. The agnostic could honestly say the first, without at all implying the second. The first statement is one of non-commitment. The other commits.
You are, of course, suggesting that all people are agnostics, but in this, you can really only speak for yourself. Some people may actually know God.
If you deny this, then you are not simply making the humble claim that you don't believe there is a God. In order to firmly deny that some people may in fact have met God, you would have to say "I know there is no God." If you do not know this, then you leave room for the possibility that others may have discovered what you have not yet discovered--viz., that there is a God.
In determining whether you are actually an agnostic, rather than an atheist, it would be possible to define a starting point for discussion.
So, I am interested in knowing your position. Are you affirming that God does not exist, or only that you do not know whether God exists? Either position may be expressed by the statement, "I don't believe in God."
If you are professing agnosticism, I would ask what evidence you might accept to move you from the point of ignorance to the point of knowledge?
On the other hand, if you are indeed an atheist, I would ask another question--namely, where did you acquire your omniscience?
You wrote:
"I do not believe in God is the same thing as I believe there is no God."
Not so. The agnostic could honestly say the first, without at all implying the second. The first statement is one of non-commitment. The other commits.
You are, of course, suggesting that all people are agnostics, but in this, you can really only speak for yourself. Some people may actually know God.
If you deny this, then you are not simply making the humble claim that you don't believe there is a God. In order to firmly deny that some people may in fact have met God, you would have to say "I know there is no God." If you do not know this, then you leave room for the possibility that others may have discovered what you have not yet discovered--viz., that there is a God.
In determining whether you are actually an agnostic, rather than an atheist, it would be possible to define a starting point for discussion.
So, I am interested in knowing your position. Are you affirming that God does not exist, or only that you do not know whether God exists? Either position may be expressed by the statement, "I don't believe in God."
If you are professing agnosticism, I would ask what evidence you might accept to move you from the point of ignorance to the point of knowledge?
On the other hand, if you are indeed an atheist, I would ask another question--namely, where did you acquire your omniscience?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_CFChristian
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:49 am
atheist wrote:TK,
Mass delusions fueled by propaganda spread by a small number of warped individuals do not refute my point. Humans are good and compassionate in general. They can be taught to act in reprehensible ways but that is far from the natural state of things. I don't claim humans are perfect or incapable of sensless violence and hatred. I just stated that humans do have a "compassionate gene" which naturally directs them to behave towards one another.
In a way, your example supports my point. If there was any natural reason for humans to be violent towards each other then there would have been some discernable benefit to the Rwandan genocide. Since we can point to absolutely zero benefit to either side of that bloodshed it's obvious that nature did the right thing in providing us with natural repulsion towards harming humans.
Why does anybody entertain him? Does he show a glimpse of wanting to know the truth?Christ answered and moved on, unless he has asked to know more about Christ you are all playing into this ambush. He is looking to drag anybody to were he has fallen.
Pr 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Pr 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.