Исход

Fanny Cradock

That's not a typo! I was originally going to entitle this thread "Leave me alone, Jesus" or something equally amusing, but I then though that would go down as well with some as a Jacky Mason stand-up routine at a KKK convention.

According to Google Translate, Исход is the Russian for Exodus International Ministries. This is the name given to an organisation that was set up in Russia sometime in the late 90's by a thug and drug addict who had found Jesus and renounced his ways. Sergey Oshchepkov was the man in question, and so compelled did he feel to help those who found themselves as utterly lost as he once was, that he decided to set up Exodus.

Though this 2005 documentary is very short (less than 20 minutes), it is truly inspiring to see the changes brought about in the lives of these shells of people through Jesus. It is bizarre (but wonderful) to see some thoroughly dodgy looking guys in black leather jackets and bad haircuts punching the air in joy (not somebody's face in anger) with a new sense of purpose and hope. I know exactly what the detractors will say but I'm not one bit bothered.

Part 1
Part 2

kelly1

Very good video FC! I love hearing conversion testimonies. Always boosts my faith!

Fanny Cradock

I've had the good fortune to hear a number of stories quite like this in person. Great stuff!

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Very good video FC! I love hearing conversion testimonies. Always boosts my faith!

And your faith needs boostiing?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And your faith needs boostiing?

Everybody's faith needs boosting.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Everybody's faith needs boosting.

I was half joking. But now that I think about it - that's incredible.

Genghiz Cohen

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was half joking. But now that I think about it - that's incredible.

To doubt is human, but to fly in the face of logic is Theism. :pac:

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was half joking. But now that I think about it - that's incredible.

Why? Faith is a trust in God which is based on a measure of evidence but lacking conclusive proof. Therefore viewing more evidence of the power of God to change lives boosts our faith. Since nobody's faith is perfect, we all need a boost.

What's incredible about that?

Fanny Cradock

I would assume it's because Tim thinks, like body temperature, faith is maintained at a steady 37 C.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was half joking. But now that I think about it - that's incredible.

Why?

My atheism gets boosted all the time. It got boosted when I read The God Delusion, it got boosted watching that series on YouTube, it got boosted reading the article on why were are religious in New Scientist, it tends to get boosted hanging around this forum an awful lot :pac:

I don't think there was anything wrong with what Kelly said, by boosted I think he just means reaffirmed.

I'm all for attacking faith and stuff, but jez lads I could think of a lot better things to attack those videos over than that and I ain't because I don't think that is the point of this thread (possibly Fanny you might want to make this Christians only)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

(possibly Fanny you might want to make this Christians only)

For now I'll rely upon peace and good will amongst all men to see this thread through.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Why? Faith is a trust in God which is based on a measure of evidence but lacking conclusive proof. Therefore viewing more evidence of the power of God to change lives boosts our faith. Since nobody's faith is perfect, we all need a boost.

What's incredible about that?

It's incredible because it comes across that there's a part of you that's innately afraid all of this isn't true.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's incredible because it comes across that there's a part of you that's innately afraid all of this isn't true.

In your imagination? Quite possibly.

Actually, if it isn't true then that won't harm me one little bit. I've had a wonderful life thanks to my faith.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

In your imagination? Quite possibly.

No. In your imagination? Quite possibly :-)

Actually, if it isn't true then that won't harm me one little bit. I've had a wonderful life thanks to my faith.

So you *need* it to have a wonderful life - is that what you are saying?

postcynical

With reference to the above evidence, I've fixed your post

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

To doubt is human, but to fly in the face of logic is aTheism. :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Oh, mercy! Not again.

Tim, you are just going to insert whatever hidden meaning you find in people's words and then do a bit of psychoanalysis quackery when we reject your clunking inferences.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh, mercy! Not again.

Tim, you are just going to insert whatever hidden meaning you find in people's words and then do a bit of psychoanalysis quackery when we reject your clunking inferences.

Oh don't worry I'm off to watch Vincent Browne. Good night.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So you *need* it to have a wonderful life - is that what you are saying?

It has certainly made a difference in my life. And it's worth examining the evidence to ensure that I've made a decision based on truth not error.

Therefore I'm happy when I discover evidence that strengthens my belief that I made the right decision.

It's no different from what happens in many walks of life every day.

Genghiz Cohen

postcynical wrote: »

With reference to the above evidence, I've fixed your post

If Theism were logical it would have been proven long ago and we wouldn't have an A&A forum. Then, if we did it would be the shunned little brother of all other Religion & Spirituality forums.

What I'm saying is, unfix my post!

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If Theism were logical it would have been proven long ago and we wouldn't have an A&A forum. Then, if we did it would be the shunned little brother of all other Religion & Spirituality forums.

What I'm saying is, unfix my post!

Nonsense. Using your your criteria atheism should have been proved right sometime around the time of the Enlightenment. Yet here both side are arguing over the existence of God.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nonsense. Using your your criteria atheism should have been proved right sometime around the time of the Enlightenment. Yet here both side are arguing over the existence of God.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

So agnosticism has been proven? Must have missed that.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Therefore I'm happy when I discover evidence that strengthens my belief that I made the right decision.

Are you sad if you discover evidence that weakness your belief you made the right decision?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you sad if you discover evidence that weakness your belief you made the right decision?

Are you?

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So agnosticism has been proven? Must have missed that.

Irony? Sarcasm?
Isn't the whole point of agnosticism that nothing has been proven?

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nonsense. Using your your criteria atheism should have been proved right sometime around the time of the Enlightenment. Yet here both side are arguing over the existence of God.

Burden of proof is on the Theist and has been for a few thousand years, until such a time as God can be proven, He/She/It doesn't exist.

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Burden of proof is on the Theist and has been for a few thousand years, until such a time as God can be proven, He/She/It doesn't exist.

No, if you come into the Christianity forum to lecture us on how wrong we are then the burden of proof is firmly on you.

If I entered the A&A forum to try to persuade you how wrong you were then the burden of proof would be on me.

Galvasean

postcynical wrote: »

With reference to the above evidence, I've fixed your post

You can't have a capital as the second letter of a word!
:pac:

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you?

Well if you mean "right" in the factual / evidential sense, my answer would be rarely.

If you mean "right" in a moral sense, than I would feel quite bad. If I did something that I thought was morally right, but it turned out to be morally wrong I would feel bad unless.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

No, if you come into the Christianity forum to lecture us on how wrong we are then the burden of proof is firmly on you.

If I entered the A&A forum to try to persuade you how wrong you were then the burden of proof would be on me.

I mean on the world stage.

It's amazing to think that you believe logic doesn't apply here.
The burden of proof will always remain firmly on the shoulders of Theists, until such a time as they provide substantial evidence to change that.

postcynical

Galvasean wrote: »

You can't have a capital as the second letter of a word!
:pac:

For an Irish believer anything is possible, creidim i nDia:pac:

*may not be correct Gaelic...

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I mean on the world stage.

It's amazing to think that you believe logic doesn't apply here.
The burden of proof will always remain firmly on the shoulders of Theists, until such a time as they provide substantial evidence to change that.

Logic certainly does apply here. If you can fulfill your burden of proof by demonstrating logically that atheism is true then I don't think anyone will get upset.

Otherwise toddle off back to your own forum and wait for any Christian that tries to convert you. Then you can, rightly this time, tell them that the burden of proof lies with them.

postcynical

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If Theism were logical it would have been proven long ago and we wouldn't have an A&A forum. Then, if we did it would be the shunned little brother of all other Religion & Spirituality forums.

What I'm saying is, unfix my post!

This is ironic. Not only are your two sentences logically incompatible but each is intrinsically illogical. A logical argument alone will not prove anything to be true, it will only show something to be logically consistent or not.

Your post remains unfixed until some atheists accept that reasoning ability and theistic stance are uncorrelated.:pac:

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

Logic certainly does apply here. If you can fulfill your burden of proof by demonstrating logically that atheism is true then I don't think anyone will get upset.

Otherwise toddle off back to your own forum and wait for any Christian that tries to convert you. Then you can, rightly this time, tell them that the burden of proof lies with them.

“There are none so blind as those, that will not see.”

I'd laugh if I could believe you weren't being serious.

I will always tell a Theist, not just Christian that they have to justify their beliefs, here or anywhere else you care to mention (Assuming I can get there).

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I will always tell a Theist, not just Christian that they have to justify their beliefs, here or anywhere else you care to mention (Assuming I can get there).

We do attempt to justify our beliefs, just as you do. If you don't accept that Christianity is true then so be it. Am I missing something?

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

“There are none so blind as those, that will not see.”

I'd laugh if I could believe you weren't being serious.

I will always tell a Theist, not just Christian that they have to justify their beliefs, here or anywhere else you care to mention (Assuming I can get there).

Let's get something straight. And I'm speaking now as a moderator rather than as an individual poster expressing a personal view. There is nothing personal against you - but it's important that posters understand the purpose of this forum.

You don't go into the Soccer forum and demand that soccer fans must prove to you that their game is worth following.

You don't go into the Dublin City forum and demand that they must prove to you that Dublin isn't the armpit of the universe.

You don't come into the Christianity forum and demand that we justify or prove our beliefs to you.

As I see it you have 3 choices:
a) You abide by this moderator's ruling.
b) You decide to stay out of this forum.
c) I decide that you stay out of this forum.

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We do attempt to justify our beliefs, just as you do. If you don't accept that Christianity is true then so be it. Am I missing something?

Attempt is the word, because you can't. Not until Himself appears in a way that prevents disbelief.
I don't need to prove my side, Theists do and they need to accept that.

PDN wrote:

You don't come into the Christianity forum and demand that we justify or prove our beliefs to you.

This discussion was never meant to be about actually proving yes/no that God exists, but about your acceptance that, if asked, you had to try and not just prove it to me, to everyone. Because I'm sure it's relevant to everyone that it gets proven/dis-proven.

PDN wrote:

Otherwise toddle off back to your own forum

Well that's borderline offensive.

Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult.

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Attempt is the word, because you can't. Not until Himself appears in a way that prevents disbelief.
I don't need to prove my side, Theists do and they need to accept that.

Do you actually have a point? Or are you simply attempting to assert the superiority of your position?

Given that billions of people throughout history have attested to belief in the God (the number is larger again when you lump all theists together), it seems that your position as an atheist minority isn't so superior after all.

Can you possibly fathom why it becomes tiresome for Christians on this forum to constantly have to defend our faith? Can you grasp why your claims to superiority and demand that the burden of proof lies on us becomes irksome when it is you who are attacking Christianity on the Christianity forum?

Listen, I'll say it again. If you decide to reject Christianity that is just fine. It's your choice and you will either be proved correct and fizzle into non-existence when you die or be proved incorrect. At this stage I'm afraid it is your problem. There is no final proof for or against God, so please stop demanding it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For now I'll rely upon peace and good will amongst all men to see this thread through.

That went well

Zombrex

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This discussion was never meant to be about actually proving yes/no that God exists, but about your acceptance that, if asked, you had to try and not just prove it to me, to everyone. Because I'm sure it's relevant to everyone that it gets proven/dis-proven

No, I'm pretty sure this discussion is about the Russian evangelical church "Exodus"

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That went well

My faith in humanity lies in tatters. Still, that half a day was bliss.

gaynorvader

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Attempt is the word, because you can't. Not until Himself appears in a way that prevents disbelief.
I don't need to prove my side, Theists do and they need to accept that.



This discussion was never meant to be about actually proving yes/no that God exists, but about your acceptance that, if asked, you had to try and not just prove it to me, to everyone. Because I'm sure it's relevant to everyone that it gets proven/dis-proven.


Well that's borderline offensive.

I'm pretty sure any debate in the Christianity forums is more than likely going to start with the presumption that God exists. Therefore, you trying to debate this would be simply avoiding the issue at hand.