There have been far more ecumenical councils than most people realize. The ones that have gotten the most attention have been more political than Christian, starting with Nicaea, hosted by the still pagan Constantine, at Constantine's palace, guarded by troops loyal to Constatine. Ever wonder why Constantine got the results he wanted?
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The same way as Mohammed and Marxists: forced conversions via persecution of dissenters as children of "believers" are brainwashed.
It is written today as "enthused", or "filled with god". But the problem is which god it was associated with. It was not directly associated with Yahweh. But it would suggest links with uncovered women's hair and disorganized worship among other things. Other links have been recognized by C.H. Dodd (early 20th century), Rudolph Bultmann (mid-20th century) and Raymond Brown (late 20th century), all well-respected NT scholars.
It is my assumption that all people seek to live their "best" lives. The single indisputable witness to "atheists" is the life you lead. We attempt to "argue and offer "proof" via philosophies, quotations from our book and personal expressions of our faith. The world has seen and heard it for 2,000+ years and if the falling numbers of Christians in North America is any indication, it is not working. Our assumption that atheists can "be saved" via argumentation, i.e. witnessing, evangelizing etc.My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice.
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?
Over...
What can attract people of good will is seeing Christianity. They have little or no interest in our "religion" if they do not see life change in us, if they do not see a more powerful, more legitimate and more vibrant love expressed in our daily lives. If our life is our sermon, it will attract those seeking life change, hope and real love.
In any public gathering, what is the possibility of determining who are Christians? Theoretically, Christians should stand out in a crowd of pagans. A friend posed this question. If you had 1000 pagans and 1,000 Christians in a mixed crowd could you pick out the Christians if you looked at everyones checkbooks, social media, business practices, community service, racial attitudes, politics, family relationships, kids and happiness?
On average 2% of the general population is now or has cared for a foster child. Christians average 3%. Christians are indistinguishable from the general population in rates of divorce. Sexual and financial abuse by Christian “leaders” are exposed regularly. The 10 leading Christian Protestant pastors have a combined net worth of $1billion, making Christianity look like just another shady business proposition. Some Christians are claiming their Jesus-given right to rule America.
Approximately 28% of young men, under 30 years old, report not having any close social connections. They have never personally asked a woman for a date. This is a significant increase from only 3% in the early 1990s. In fact, a 2021 study found that 15% of all men reported having no close friends, up from 3% in the early 1990s. In North America rates of church attendance and participation in faith-based activities are in a decades long decline.
Interpersonal relationships are breaking down. In 2023, the average age for a first marriage in the United States was 30.2 years for men and 28.4 years for women. Divorce rates for first marriages are 50% and 65% for second marriages. These figures represent a steady increase from 1950, when the median age for men was 22.5 and for women was 20.1. The median age of first marriage has been rising for both men and women since 1998. The percentage of US children living in single-parent households has nearly tripled since 1960, increasing from 9% to 25% by 2023.
Our most powerful witness is our loving, caring and serving lives.
Here is the God revealed by Jesus and Paul in the NT, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Tim. 1:17),
in terms of seven words. Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26).
If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion.
1. God’s omnipotence means that He can do everything except “disown Himself” or not be God (2Tim. 2:13). It does NOT mean that God can perform logical absurdities, such as creating a rock too large for Him to move. Omnipotence or sovereignty also means that human MFW has limits with regard to how it can contradict God’s will. God provides morally competent humans the ability to resist His intentional will and plan of salvation (POS) within limits, such as the time limit that will end with death, resurrection (the last miracle) and judgment (per Heb. 9:27)–called His permissive will.
2. God’s power is equivalent to His omniscience. Jeremiah wrote that “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom.” (Jer. 10:12) Many NT passages refer to God as the source of true wisdom (e.g., Acts 6:3, 1Cor. 1:25, Col. 2:2-3, Jam. 1:5). God’s infinitely superior knowledge is extolled in Romans 11:33-34 (echoing Isa. 40:13-14) and Daniel 2:20-23.
Omniscience includes knowledge of people’s thoughts (Psa. 94:11, Matt. 12:25) and the foreknowledge of events (Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29, 11:2, 1Pet. 1:2). Some people think that God even knows what a person will be/do before that person exists (Jer. 1:5). If this view is correct (which I find incomprehensible a la Kant), it must be maintained that God’s foreknowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated. I find it simpler to think that God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish. (Surely this universe is not a replay of a history that has already happened!) God allows eddies in the river of salvation.
3. Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in Rev. 1:18): “I am the Apha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jeremiah 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal.
4. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per Psa. 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1Kings 8:27, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 23:33, Acts 17:27-28 and Eph. 4:6.) God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication (like the need for a common language and culture cited in Part I). However, the Bible teaches that God also differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (Isa. 55:9, Eph. 3:19). We can be like God (Gen. 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (John 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).
As finite morals our comprehension is limited, but Scripture indicates that God wills to exist in the physical dimensions and is omnipresent in space, but we should not idolize it as pantheism, just as we should not engage in Bibliolatry, even though God as the HS also exists in the dimension of Logos/GW. However, per the NT God approves of worshipping Him as revealed via the human dimension of Jesus as Son.
In addition to the omni-attributes related to power, Paul referred to God’s “nature” (in Rom. 1:20), which may be described in three ways: love, truth and justice. These often are called the moral attributes of God.
5. The Bible says that God is love and true love comes from God (1John 4:7-21, Rom. 5:5), so volitional creatures or souls can love only by reflecting, imitating or cooperating with the Creator’s love. Although the Bible speaks of God hating Esau (Mal. 1:3) and other evil people (Hos. 9:15), Jesus’ teaching of love for enemies (Matt. 5:44) reveals that God loves all creatures including Satan but hates their sinful choices (Ezek. 33:11). Seven NT Scriptural pearls teach divine omnilove: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4.
It seems logical to assume that the all-loving God would create the best possible world or one in which the greatest percentage of persons may attain ultimate joy (1Tim. 2:3-4, 2PT 3:9). God may have created all possible kinds of worlds simultaneously: the world of dead matter, the world of living plants, the world of intelligent animals, and the world of morally accountable souls/humans. God’s world/way is best.
6. The Bible teaches that God is truth (John 1:17, 8:40, 15:26, 17:17), so all truth is from God and manifests God’s Spirit. If any atheists are truthseekers, then they are not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34, 2Thes. 2:10, John 18:37), because Jesus promised that those who seek will find (Luke 11:9&13). Of course, if the truth is that there is no God or heaven, then what we believe is no more significant than the ideology of a rock or some other evolved collection of atoms (Eccl. 3:20)! Truth or God’s Word is represented in the Bible as light (John 1:1-9), which also signifies God’s glory (Luke 2:9).
7. The Bible also teaches that God is justness or righteousness (Rom. 3:25-26, 9:14, 2Thes. 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (Josh. 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so. Another synonym for justness is goodness (Isa. 5:16).
I agree with your main point, but would point out that the key question is how true Christians should be discerned,
and the answer of Jesus was stated in John 13:35 (cf. 1John 4 for context). Love can be manifested in numerous ways,
with having a foster child being one way. My son is one of the 28% and 15%, but at least he is not part of the 50% and 65%.
And keep in mind that singleness was recommended by Jesus and Paul for those who can be celibate.
Ultimate reality can be neither proved nor disproved with or without the Bible; we all walk by faith. However, an insight
I would like to share is what I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will.
IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of reasonable comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of lucky/blind gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear.
Thus, IMO this faith is the best belief.
I would note that positive proof is available only in mathematics. Other proofs depend on the evidence. Evidence supported by a testable theory that includes a model of reality that closely approximates observable reality is the strongest proof. Other strong proofs lack one of the requisites for the strongest proof. When a proof lacks two of the requisite proofs it may or may not be strong depending on just what proof it does have. A theory with no proofs is the absolute weakest and is often the theory of last resort for an atheist, which is why any good discussion must start with what they accept as proof. Using scripture on someone who does not accept it as valid is a waste of breath. One needs to also be prepared for the other person's emotional response, what they have already decided cannot be true will likely be defended to the hilt. Further, the very rare, good opponent of the Christian faith will know just where the weak points are in Christian tradition (they do exist are known to some people, but invisible to many Christians who "know" that none exist) and will attack them. An inability to defend against such attacks will lead to the defeat of the Christian, and a potential loss of any audience who overhears.
The good news is that modern science, since the 1990's, has eliminated any strong arguments against a deistic god, rather it currently supports such an entity. But even better, even more recent discoveries support the Christian understanding of God, but at the sacrifice of some traditional teachings that were discovered "clearly represented" in the scriptures sometime after 325 CE, before this time the church was unaware of these undeniable points.
You seem to want to push for the absence of disproof, which can cut both ways, I prefer to use positive proof against a lack of proof.
The good news is that modern science, since the 1990's, has eliminated any strong arguments against a deistic god, rather it currently supports such an entity. But even better, even more recent discoveries support the Christian understanding of God, but at the sacrifice of some traditional teachings that were discovered "clearly represented" in the scriptures sometime after 325 CE, before this time the church was unaware of these undeniable points.
You seem to want to push for the absence of disproof, which can cut both ways, I prefer to use positive proof against a lack of proof.
Yes, math and hard science work to explain this reality, but regarding ultimate reality I begin without the Bible like Descartes.
by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality?
I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice
.An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the NT book of 1Cor. 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.
These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:
1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me
Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias)...
Four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.
Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.
Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. The first people to perceive God were named Adam (Gen. 2:7) and Eve (Gen. 2:22 & 3:20). Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).
Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).
Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination. [Slashes indicate essentially equivalent terms.]
There are four independent, but mutually supporting, arguments from current science. Two arise from physics, one from biochemistry and one from Consciousness Studies. The first three support a deistic god, the last supports a personal god. I can use these four "proofs" to support most of the claims about God in the Bible without resorting to scripture, rather these approaches act independently, and in so doing prove Romans 1:20. Now future science may discover something that removes these "proofs", but as of today they stand as intellectually sound and provide a basis for the support of God and scripture, not God supporting scripture and scripture supporting God, and both scripture and God supported by flawed human belief.
As for who the first people to perceive God, you rely on the Bible, not world history. World history tells us nothing about who first perceived God nor how He was perceived.
Now your appeal to existential reality flounders unless you are claiming that only Christians have the capacity to be moral entities, yet observation of how people actually act indicates that Christians are no more moral than any other segment of the population and many times are among the lest moral. There is no clear evidence in your argument, as presented, for immortality, heaven, hell or ultimate justice without invoking scripture.
Finally moral conscience can be derived from games theory, without any need to resort to a divine being.
You keep returning to a reliance on scripture to make your point, so how do you deal with someone who considers scripture to be a myth or who knows scripture well enough to point out to you the flaws in it that Christian tradition scrambles to cover up and calls out those efforts as the ultimate failures that they are unless one has so tied their mental and emotional safety to them being sound? Far too many who have serious studied the scriptures have found these shortcomings and lost faith because they could not get past the failures.
All that is accepted as scripture, in the Protestant tradition, has been recognized AFTER some political trauma. Yes, God can act in that fashion, but humans are also quite capable of defining scripture in such a way as to allow survival of the "chosen" group after the political setback. The Masoretic text, the official Protestant OT, was first approved by the Jews after the 1st Jewish War, which they lost badly and carefully rejected any texts that implied the Jews could successfully revolt against an unjust conqueror. Of the three known general collections of potential OT texts at that time, the Masoretic text has the fewest connections to the NT. NT writers clearly used the other two text collections in their writings. The Masoretic text comes in only where there are no differences between the three. Some texts that were rejected for the NT were widely regarded as acceptable by believers, but caused concerns for the Romans.
As for who the first people to perceive God, you rely on the Bible, not world history. World history tells us nothing about who first perceived God nor how He was perceived.
Now your appeal to existential reality flounders unless you are claiming that only Christians have the capacity to be moral entities, yet observation of how people actually act indicates that Christians are no more moral than any other segment of the population and many times are among the lest moral. There is no clear evidence in your argument, as presented, for immortality, heaven, hell or ultimate justice without invoking scripture.
Finally moral conscience can be derived from games theory, without any need to resort to a divine being.
You keep returning to a reliance on scripture to make your point, so how do you deal with someone who considers scripture to be a myth or who knows scripture well enough to point out to you the flaws in it that Christian tradition scrambles to cover up and calls out those efforts as the ultimate failures that they are unless one has so tied their mental and emotional safety to them being sound? Far too many who have serious studied the scriptures have found these shortcomings and lost faith because they could not get past the failures.
All that is accepted as scripture, in the Protestant tradition, has been recognized AFTER some political trauma. Yes, God can act in that fashion, but humans are also quite capable of defining scripture in such a way as to allow survival of the "chosen" group after the political setback. The Masoretic text, the official Protestant OT, was first approved by the Jews after the 1st Jewish War, which they lost badly and carefully rejected any texts that implied the Jews could successfully revolt against an unjust conqueror. Of the three known general collections of potential OT texts at that time, the Masoretic text has the fewest connections to the NT. NT writers clearly used the other two text collections in their writings. The Masoretic text comes in only where there are no differences between the three. Some texts that were rejected for the NT were widely regarded as acceptable by believers, but caused concerns for the Romans.
Well, while I would probably agree with the arguments you mentioned, let us not get carried away and think that they "inerrantly prove" anything, because of the possibility of future knowledge showing them to be in error.
I need neither the Bible nor history to define the first beings who were human rather than mere animals as those who attained God consciousness and moral conscience, tautological though it is.
You are correct that without the NT revelation we humans would be in deep doo-doo, without hope of heaven.
However, the NT provides greater evidence for its truth than any other writing IMO. Let me share some more of what I have written:
Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.
One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).
The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).
The first type of answer can be called “cosmaterialism”, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing may be called “moralism”, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God per Rom. 1:20).
The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.
A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.
Are you tracking before I share more of this train of thought?
B
Blue155
Guest
A lot of people hate God because they feel He let something tragic happen to a family member or friend. And they prayed and it didn’t go the way they thought, so the individual who hates God thinks God doesn’t care.
Yes, when they ought to realize that struggles as mortals are meant to teach the need of salvation to immortality in heaven.
Also, if God did not allow people to make mistakes and feel pain, they would be programmed robots (Rom. 8:18).
Amen. God cares so much that He is willing to suffer humanity's sinfulness, so that we may enjoy fellowship in heaven--
if we are willing (1John 1:3-4, Matt. 23:37, Eph. 4:30).
I believe that’s the way it is with most atheists. When I called myself an atheist I wasn’t technically an atheist. I knew in my heart that there was a god but I didn’t want there to be anymore. After crying out to Him as a young boy battling past trauma, depression, suicidal thoughts, and addiction, I turned and decided to be my own god for the next 20 years. That worked out great
. I finally came home. Not much good happened in those years besides I learned many of the tactics used by the evil one. Either way the atheist mindset never made sense to me no matter how many Dawkins videos I watched. I just simply wanted to believe there was no god. Many “atheists” are simply agnostic at most.
B
Blue155
Guest
Agreed. Deep down, they know God exists, they just don’t want to admit it. If they genuinely believed He didn’t, they wouldn’t get mad whenever someone mentions Him. They wouldn’t spend time debating others, writing books or articles about Him, etc. But to avoid the burden of proof, they will say atheism is a lack of belief, which is just another way to say I’m agnostic.I believe that’s the way it is with most atheists. When I called myself an atheist I wasn’t technically an atheist. I knew in my heart that there was a god but I didn’t want there to be anymore. After crying out to Him as a young boy battling past trauma, depression, suicidal thoughts, and addiction, I turned and decided to be my own god for the next 20 years. That worked out great