Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

This forum is non-functional

1…5681011

Comments

  • #212
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    Agreed ... but Christianity (in all senses of the word) has dominated the World up until a few years ago ... for example western jurisprudence ... which is the basis of law over most of the globe is taken directly from Judeo-christian jurisprudence.
    However, in recent years Christianity has become increasingly eclipsed.

    Whilst you might argue that Judeo-Christian jurisprudence has been an overall good thing, you have to balance things by picking out that which has been detrimental. You might look at the eye for an eye aspect of the law which reined for so long. It's not like jurisprudence was all soft and cuddly like it is, relatively speaking, today. Indeed, the humanity being introduced into the law these days also happens to coincide with the rise of secularism and the separation of church and state.

    Like I say, a topic which will to and fro forever without a killer blow being landed for either side.

    I'm inclined to suppose that the law of God written into the hearts of man will dominate, rather than the extent to which Christianity-at-large prevails. I'll cite (for the nth time) Richard Dawkins pointing to research, in The God Delusion, which indicates men the world over share the same basic morality. He, as we, argues that this points to a common ancestor. We only argue about the ancestor :)

    Christian Apologetics is critical in todays world of rampant Atheist apologetics in all it's forms.

    If God then atheism in all it's forms won't, try as it might, answer the ache in everymans heart. Apologetics is good in so far as it goes but no one will be argued into the kingdom of God. You could argue that letting people follow atheism to it's natural conclusion (nihilism, in the case the atheism is brutally honest) will produce rotten fruit that will turn people elsewhere for answers.



    I agree with you on all of that ... but my point is that the Christian Churches have totally surrendered to the Atheist worldview, not only on creationism ... but crucially also on us being part of God's Creation, by running headlong along with any any unfounded materialistic speculation that secularists conjure up about the origins of life and the Earth itself ... to explain everything without any requirement for God in the process .. and that is why children from Christian homes are largely practical atheists by the time they reach their teens.

    Children in Christian homes are atheists by the time they reach their teens largely because they aren't believers in the first place. Whatever about God having children (a.k.a. the parents) he doesn't have grandchildren.

    A child of a Christian (as in a born again Christian), whilst having exposure to Christianity, has no particular advantage in terms of his being saved himself than any other. At least, I don't see how that would be the case.

    Children of Christians adhere to atheism because they are unbelievers and unbelievers tend, like believers of all shades, to believe in something rather than nothing. There are big questions each person has to answer: who am I, where did I come from, where am I going. The unbelieving child of a Christian has a clear place to land their pre-existing unbelief. It there was no such thing as organised atheism, these unbelieving children of Christians wouldn't be believers.
    I don't expect all Christians to be Creationists ... but I do expect them to have cogent practical arguments for why they believe we are part of God's Creation ... and not just act as repeaters for the latest Atheist explanation for why it created itself without any need for God in the process.

    I don't think ToE is the latest atheist explanation for anything. It's a well established theory according to the rules which govern the scientific game. That's not to say it's true or even exactly as the current model supposes things to be, but, according to the rules, well established it is.

    We are part of God's creation primarily because God tells us so. We don't have to have a precise mechanical model for how we suppose that came about. Creationist creation? Spirit placed into evolved man? I, again, don't know what you mean by Christians supposing a God-less creation. I don't know any Christian who thinks that.

    It might be that because they aren't Creationists that you overlook what they say they do consider to have occurred. Because Godless creation Christians is a bit of a nonsense.



    The Atheists pile-in on almost everything posted by Christians that challenges their worldview ... and not only my postings. For example, the Christian Churches run about 90% of the primary schools in this country and there is a strong secularist campaign to reduce this to zero ... yet it doesn't even merit a thread on this forum (or if it did it has sunk without trace).

    Whatever about reducing things to zero, don't you think 90% church control over schools in a truly secularised country is something that requires overturning? I think it's utterly unfair that the church controls to this extent - it's like hanging onto the ball just because you own it.

    Remember that much of what we call the Church in this country is cultural Christianity - certainly the historical churches. I'd be glad to see the back of it - I never thought that world dominance was Jesus' game.



    ... yet over on the A & A there is a very active thread on this topic with a very cohesive Atheist posting framework ... and a discordant hit and miss approach by Christians, if they even bother to post at all. Its like they don't care ... while the Atheists, to a man, care very deeply indeed.
    Similarly the building of a major Teaching Hospital by Secularists on the property of a major Roman Catholic Teaching Hospital and the proposed imposition of secular 'ethics' within it's walls hasn't merited a whimper on this forum ... but it is being discussed very stridently over on the A & A. It's like the Christians have lost the will to bother.

    Like I say, I don't object to people in society deciding which was they want their society to be. I certainly don't want to hang on to the vestiges of power bequeathed us by an age of dominant cultural/political Christianity. Sure, there will be heated argument and anger and over reaction as power is wrested from those who once held it and try still to hang onto it. But revolution is always thus.

    I don't worry about Christianity. It's been there and will be there and will ebb and flow on the tide. Sure, we've each our role to play but protecting the not-particularly-Christian status quo of old ain't it.

    Quite true, we ultimately need a change of heart for the unsaved to be saved ... but, in many cases a change of heart won't happen without a change of mind ... and thus strong intellectual arguments are also critical in the battle for souls.


    This is done for the Christian parents by a secualrist dominated media and education system that repeatedy tells their children that everything created itself without any need for God ... and with little or no opposing arguments from church systems that are rapidly becoming moribund.

    That's a fair point: the churches job is to become relevant again. It hasn't been for all of my life time. It might be that the churches of old have to die so that the new growth (which is everywhere) can blossom. Certainly my local Church of Ireland has about another decade in it before the congregation diminishes to irrelevant. I don't know how the Roman Catholic / Church of Ireland churches can reinvent themselves from the ashes. They, and their mode of doing church, are long past their sell by date.

    As elsewhere in life, lack of competition breeds complacency, laziness and corruption. Christians perhaps need the rug pulled under their feet a little. The hot and cold you were referring to earlier.



    True ... but if you keep your points succinct ... and summarise as you go along ... you will not be drowned out by pile ins and the use of excesssive verbage by the other side.:)
    The pile-ins can even work to your advantage by showing up logical inconsitencies in the secularists arguments, by contrasting such inconsistencies between points made in the multiple postings of the other side.

    We'll have to beg to differ. An iron-clad argument, like a proof, is a rigorous thing. You would need, at minimum, an atheist who is keen to follow your argument. Usually your being machined gunned with obstacles of the legitimate and illegitimate kind


  • #213
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    I agree to a point ... I sometimes thank Atheist postings for this reason as well.
    However, this doesn't explain the gross disparity between thanks numbers between atheist and christian posts ... unless you're arging that the average atheist posting is vastly more meritorious than the average Christian one ... which isn't the case IMO.

    The most plausible reason for the disparity in thanks is that the Atheists are much more cohesive than the Christians, at least when it comes to the postings from their own side.

    If this is the case, then it is a problem for the Christians to think about ... and not really any issue for the Atheists ... who seem to have it 'sussed' amongst themselves.

    I think what you're actually seeing is the increasingly secular attitude prevalent in Ireland, and that you referring to this as Atheism (why a proper noun?) is a misnomer, as in fact is the title of the A&A forum. If you look at the threads on that forum, you'll quickly notice that the majority are better described as having a secular topic than an atheist one, i.e. the unwanted involvement of the church in the running of state institutions and the troubles this has caused in the past and continues to cause. This goes beyond the microcosm of these forums and can be seen the recent fracas with the national maternity hospital, the citizens assembly on abortion, and gay rights. These strongly secular attitudes are clearly evident in Christians as wells as atheists, as there simply aren't enough atheists to impact the numbers involved. There are also serious concerns about atrocities carried out by and covered up by the church, and these concerns are also clearly held by Christians. I think to suggest that you can break down Irish society on the basis of Christians versus Atheists is a nonsense and a rather juvenile one at that.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #214
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,492 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    They adhere to atheism because they are unbeleivers and unbelievers tend, like believers of all shades, will believe in something rather than nothing. There are big questions each person has to answer: who am I, where did I come from, where am I going. The unbelieving child of a Christian now has a clear place to land their pre-existing unbelief

    Does this make any sense at all? Atheism, as has been said so many times before, is not a belief system. You cannot comprehend that a lack of belief is not in itself a belief, but that is the case.


  • #215
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    Does this make any sense at all? Atheism, as has been said so many times before, is not a belief system. You cannot comprehend that a lack of belief is not in itself a belief, but that is the case.
    Whilst in a very narrow sense, Atheism is a lack of a belief in God, like you say ... this lack of belief generates logical follow-on beliefs as is amply demonstrated by the rush to secularism in Ireland as people lose their faith in God and become practical Atheists, if not, in many cases actual Atheists.

    I would also point out that a lack of faith in God is logically also a faith in the non-existence of God (or at the very least His irrelevance) ... it could even be a faith in the rejection of God (even if He exists) ... which would be anti-theism. All of these beliefs exist and march under the banner of 'atheism' ... something akin to the various Church denominations marching under the banner of 'christianity'.

    What you are trying to do with your idea that Atheism isn't a belief/faith is removing atheism (in all of its manifestations) from coming under any restrictions placed on faiths under the doctrine of separation of faith and state ... thereby neatly allowing Atheist beliefs and ethics to be co-opted by the state under the convenient ruse that these beliefs and ethics aren't part of any faith ... and therefore immune from the doctrine of the separation of faith and state.
    Its a great idea, for the progress of Atheism, if you can actually get away with it.
    And so far, it seems to be working.


  • #216
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    I think what you're actually seeing is the increasingly secular attitude prevalent in Ireland, and that you referring to this as Atheism (why a proper noun?) is a misnomer, as in fact is the title of the A&A forum. If you look at the threads on that forum, you'll quickly notice that the majority are better described as having a secular topic than an atheist one, i.e. the unwanted involvement of the church in the running of state institutions and the troubles this has caused in the past and continues to cause.
    It was certainly 'wanted' by the majority of the population at the time.
    To err is Human ... and there are always going to be 'troubles' running all institutions. The fact that some are run by a church doesn't make them immune from 'troubles' ... but neither does it increase the likelihood of 'troubles' either.
    ... or are you saying that despite our shocking experiences in Communist Russia, that Secular-run institutions are paragons of virtue, that are somehow immune from 'troubles'??
    smacl wrote: »
    This goes beyond the microcosm of these forums and can be seen the recent fracas with the national maternity hospital, the citizens assembly on abortion, and gay rights. These strongly secular attitudes are clearly evident in Christians as wells as atheists, as there simply aren't enough atheists to impact the numbers involved.
    These trends are clearly indicative of many cradle Christians becoming cultural and practical Atheists.
    smacl wrote: »
    There are also serious concerns about atrocities carried out by and covered up by the church, and these concerns are also clearly held by Christians. I think to suggest that you can break down Irish society on the basis of Christians versus Atheists is a nonsense and a rather juvenile one at that.
    ... and there are serious concerns about vastly greater atrocities carried out by Secularists from Revolutionary France ... to Communist Russia and on to Nazi Germany ... but we are hopefully learning from these mistakes and 'building bridges and getting over them' ... and I think the exact same should be done in relation to mistakes that churches have made.
    .


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I think Irish people in today's society don't really care so much about Nazis and Stalinists because Nazis and Stalinists aren't running our schools and hospitals. You're the Dawkins fan, personally I find him an insufferable and arrogant bore, but it does seem that self interest is in play here?

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #218
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'll cite (for the nth time) Richard Dawkins pointing to research, in The God Delusion, which indicates men the world over share the same basic morality. He, as we, argues that this points to a common ancestor. We only argue about the ancestor :)
    If all we're arguing over is some moot point over a common ancestor, why do you think the Atheists are so opposed to Christian beliefs and ethics holding sway in society?

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    We are part of God's creation primarily because God tells us so. We don't have to have a precise mechanical model for how we suppose that came about. Creationist creation? Spirit placed into evolved man? I, again, don't know what you mean by Christians supposing a God-less creation. I don't know any Christian who thinks that.
    Whilst they may not think like that ... the result is pretty much the same ... with no practical alternative to the latest Atheist idea on how everything came about without any need for God ... the atheist argument wins the day in both their minds and hearts ... and the cradle Christians quietly change their beliefs into line with an Atheist worldview, to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise result

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Whatever about reducing things to zero, don't you think 90% church control over schools in a truly secularised country is something that requires overturning? I think it's utterly unfair that the church controls to this extent - it's like hanging onto the ball just because you own it.

    Remember that much of what we call the Church in this country is cultural Christianity - certainly the historical churches. I'd be glad to see the back of it - I never thought that world dominance was Jesus' game.
    Firstly I wouldn't blithely accept that a truly secularised country is always a good thing ... a multi-cultural society is a balance between faiths and secularism.
    ... and Jesus Christ did say 'go teach all nations' ... which sounds like a worldwide command to educate ... to me !!:)


  • #219
    EirWatchr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 119 ✭✭EirWatchr


    Just catching up on this conversation now. Some points:
    Interesting that the Christians feel drowned out in a country that is apparently 90% Christian
    How does a less than 10% minority of anti-theists "drown out" an alleged 90% majority on Christians? By dominating media, and effectively "shouting them down".
    Trouble is, when someone shouts loud, they can hear very little of what might be said to them. Perhaps because they don't want to hear it.
    But, as I said in my earlier post, the intention for some is to block actual Christian discourse, on a public forum, because they don't want others to hear it or believe it either.

    Christ's view of those who would lead many astray from faith is written, load and clear, to be accepted or ignored, by their own free will:

    "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large
    millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Mt 18:6)
    "It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Lk 17:2)
    "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea." (Mk 9:42)

    They can not say they were not warned.
    Another problem: it is simply not possible to argue to the end on a discussion forum. The points broaden out as you go deeper, the posts get longer and longer, the time spent correcting mis-understanding of points of detail goes exponential. This occurs even if the original point is relatively narrow and the posters are reasonably able at to-and-fro debate. Dealing with a pile-on is simply an exercise in, well exercise. It struck me eventually that it was simply an exercise in how long I could keep the plates spinning.
    I'd agree with this. Addressing the same debates over-and-over again is actually very time-consuming. It'd nearly be better to point posters at some key books where the same arguments have been raised and countered before (more completely and with more success). Such arguments seem more suited for discussion in Atheists forums anyway, as such arguments never really address or display the principles of Christianity, which is what you'd expect more appropriate to this forum.

    I note several posters are invested heavily (i.e. seem to have a lot of time on their hands) to argue the toss constantly day after day.
    There comes a point where each of us decides where our time and energies are best spent, where they will be most beneficial. For some, that is by giving the perception that Christianity is "crowded out" on a public forum. Their own vocation. For others, it is actually doing God's work wherever it is most needed and heeded, in Churches, faith groups, bible study/prayer groups, Christian charitable organizations, etc. And that brings me on to my next point:
    I would say that when the going gets tough ... the tough should get going. The Atheists are indeed correct that a Faith that cannot
    stand up to scrutiny isn't much of a Faith. Christianity can stand up to any scrutiny that it may be subjected to ... and it's time that
    Christians 'man up' and take the defense of their Faith seriously
    That is one aspect to it. Christians are indeed commissioned to witness to the truth in word and behaviour. Jesus in his wisdom also spoke of the folly of persistence with those whose heart is set against his message, and to expend the effort elsewhere it might bear the fruits of salvation. "If anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust off your feet" (Mk 10:14).
    And more importantly, we of all people should appreciate that Christ's message in the Word of God - while intended for all - is also sacred.
    As Jesus himself said, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Mt 15:26)
    If a heart is set against God, we as Christians should display more respect for the beauty and riches we know of in the Christian faith (especially if Christ's message can be misrepresented or distorted by those who do not believe it, do not study it prayerfully, and have never made a serious commitment to apply it in their lives.)
    We shouldn't just shove our faith into the middle of the spiritual equivalent of a bar-room brawl.

    Doing so in such an arena is not taking faith "seriously" either.

    I do agree than many of the mooted 90% Christians do not take their faith seriously, making little efforts to set aside the distractions of the world, to expand their knowledge of faith and scripture and (more importantly) to practice and live their faith accordingly, and .. to pray. I wonder how many of the "90%" claimed Christians no longer even do the minimum of spending a hour in Church every Sunday in worship with their fellow Christians? It is in Christian communities such as those, from the earliest beginnings of the Church, where faith survives, is nourished, and thrives. The boards Christianity forum is not really such a community (as recently remarked), open as it is to constant disruption of the work of the Spirit. It is in the gatherings of communities of faithful and worshiping Christians that the faith really lives. God's work goes on quietly around the world and doesn't get much attention from a disinterested, secularizing media when it does show. It is how Christianity has endured for millennia, and it is where it will sprout from again the next time history has to show (once again) the consequences of the secular ideology that our modern, populous society can thrive without reference to Christ.

    The Spirit leads those hungry for answers ultimately to the Body of Christ, in His church.


  • #220
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I wonder how many of the "90%" claimed Christians no longer even do the minimum of spending a hour in Church every Sunday in worship with their fellow Christians?

    According to Wikipedia, as of 2009, about 46% of Irish Christians attend church once or more per week. As of 2011, this is 30% for Irish Catholics. A recent study highlighted in the IT recently shows the trend in decreasing mass attendance is due to continue, helped in no small part by the lack of priests.

    I don't think this has anything to do with Christians being shouted out so much as observation of religion being less relevant to the majority of people in modern western society.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #221
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    If all we're arguing over is some moot point over a common ancestor, why do you think the Atheists are so opposed to Christian beliefs and ethics holding sway in society?

    Globally morality has the same elements. Cowardice is frowned upon, men feel compelled to help others in trouble, stealing is considered wrong damaging to society etc.

    Atheists object to Christian morality because they object to the idea of an absolute authority and an absolute right and wrong. One reason for the objection is that an absolute decree closes off the ability to move within the global framework to suit yourself. You might agree globally that killing is wrong but prefer to kill a foetus that stands in the way of your lifestyle.

    Then there's the warranted dislike and hatred of what the Christian church has done by way of misuse of the power that it once had.


    Assuming what you say is true, such a strategy would be a very cruel and irresponsible one. We don't let people learn anything else by allowing them to make catastrophic mistakes ... we educate people to avoid problems ... and the same should be the case with something that you say produces 'rotten fruit'.

    Assuming? A man reaps what he sows.

    I'm not saying we should be silent. But I don't think that struggling to obtain or retain a disproportionate control over society - such that our message can be rammed, Angelus-like down peoples throats - is appropriate. Ireland isn't, and hasn't been for a long time (if ever) a Christian society. It was a society ruled by the Church and for long as that Church held true power, people conformed and played by the rules they had to play by. Many were no more Christians that the secularists are now. The only difference is that folk can be open about their position now.

    I think a commission has been given us. I don't think that involves bending the rules of fair play out of all proportion (such as by trying to retain control over education)





    Whilst they may not think like that ... the result is pretty much the same ... with no practical alternative to the latest Atheist idea on how everything came about without any need for God ... the atheist argument wins the day in both their minds and hearts ... and the cradle Christians quietly change their beliefs into line with an Atheist worldview, to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise result

    I really have no idea what you're talking about. Christians believe God created the world and everything in it - without their necessarily having to have an interest in the precise mechanics of how that came about. I for example, have no interest in the precise mechanics of it - let the atheists/scientists spanner and project and theorize all they like. At the end will come a scientific theory established to this or that degree. So what? Does a scientific theory saying "No God" trump that which I know to be the case?

    What is a cradle Christian?

    Firstly I wouldn't blithely accept that a truly secularised country is always a good thing. ... and Jesus Christ did say 'go teach all nations' ... which sounds like a worldwide command to educate ... to me !!:)

    Well it doesn't to me. Not in the sense of wrestling for inappropriate levels of political control such as to skew society against the wishes of the members of that society.

    One aspect of a man reaping what he sows is the sense he is permitted to sow as he wills.


    ... and now it is proposed to introduce the ultimate in monopolised thinking ... a legally enforced one-size-fits-all secular education programme that takes its ethics directly from the Atheist worldview ... and churches are apparently expected to sleep-walk right into this!!!

    I think the church should offer, and be permitted to offer, an education guided by Christian ethos. I don't see faith schools being eradicated - since parents (a.k.a. a particular portion of society) will demand that option. If people want their children exposed to that ethos (and I know plenty of non-Christian parents who would still prefer their kids to go to a faith rather than non-faith school) then that will be so. And if not, not.

    I simply don't see Christ trying to ram his message down peoples throats against their will. Remember too, the proponents of the atheist message are very off putting for a lot of people. People have a spiritual element to them - believer or no. It might not be developed, it might be antagonistic to the established churches (for understandable reasons) and the church of Christ (for understandable reasons). But it's there and it has a sense of smell.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    EirWatchr wrote: »
    How does a less than 10% minority of anti-theists "drown out" an alleged 90% majority on Christians?

    Because the alleged 90% majority of Christians are merely alleged. That the true figure falling a long way short of that?

    The atheists may be able to drown out .. because they are giving voice to the kinds of things that a large number of people in some way or another agree with, if not themselves atheists.

    the intention for some is to block actual Christian discourse, on a public forum, because they don't want others to hear it or believe it either.

    This places very little faith in people who might want to read what's written here. I mean, you click on a Christian forum for a reason. If one of your reasons is to be informed then filter out the rubbish you will.

    I can't understand folk knocking our atheist brethern for attacking, when there is no need to engage with them. If deciding to defend an attack (by way of apologetics, then chose a decent opponent and ignore responding to the egg-flingers. Dawkins, remember, does as much damage to his cause as he does good. The same goes for those who ape his irrational hatred of faith.

    The reader who wants to be informed will be thus informed, one way or the other.
    Christ's view of those who would lead many astray from faith is written, load and clear, to be accepted or ignored, by their own free will:

    "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large
    millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Mt 18:6)
    "It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Lk 17:2)
    "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea." (Mk 9:42)

    They can not say they were not warned.

    Speaking as one who raised furious objection at one point but who was nevertheless saved..

    It strikes me that God can handle objection. For there is good reason to object if you haven't had your eyes open. You've got people (the church) wielding huge power, who, in the eyes of someone with no reason to suppose otherwise, have no more basis for their position than a superstition.

    Indeed, why not Allah?

    I'd agree with this. Addressing the same debates over-and-over again is actually very time-consuming. It'd nearly be better to point posters at some key books where the same arguments have been raised and countered before (more completely and with more success). Such arguments seem more suited for discussion in Atheists forums anyway, as such arguments never really address or display the principles of Christianity, which is what you'd expect more appropriate to this forum.

    It's difficult whatever the issue. I mean, there are widely diverging views amongst Christians on how it is a person comes to be saved. Try follow that one down the rabbit hole with a few Christians (never mind atheists) and things quickly come unmanagable. I've never seen a forum where discussion of complex issues progresses very far. Other posters chip in, things diverge, red herrings arrive on cue...:)

    We shouldn't just shove our faith into the middle of the spiritual equivalent of a bar-room brawl.

    Which is more or less what any Christian discussion forum (in the main) is.


  • #223
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    smacl wrote: »
    Interesting attitude, given you've about four times more posts in the A&A forum than you do in this one.

    Yes, I used to an atheist. Years back when I was more of a regular poster. Is it still so interesting?
    Interesting that the Christians feel drowned out in a country that is apparently 90% Christian ;)

    I doubt there's anybody who actually believes that boards.ie is representative of society. You honestly don't, do you?! You poor sod.
    lazybones32 wrote: »
    The amount of people that have left this forum and site because of what you wrote, amounts to more than those who remained who would be considered regulars.

    The moderation is definitely an issue but are you going to walk away because someone wants you gone? Let them twist and manipulate rules to suit themselves if they have to. Just let your light shine. That's all that needs doing.

    The moderation is laughable. I think even the A&Aers would love to see PDN come back.
    frag420 wrote: »
    Its been dead for over a year and now you have risen it again...not sure if you're haunting it or its a miracle?

    In fairness, boards.ie itself is dying/dead. I'm not a regular poster anymore, just come back now and then and am commenting on the way it is.

    All in the hope that PopePalpatine will thank me.


  • #224
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    for those who wish to discuss atheism and Christianity, please use the superthread.

    Given that some posters are unhappy with the current shape of the forum, does any have any constructive feedback as to make it better? Before anyone suggests it, non-Christians won't be barred from posting in the forum.

    With regards to moderation, if people believe (as has been suggested) that mods are abusing their position in how they apply the rules of the forum, I recommend you either raise a thread in Helpdesk or contact a CMod (bluewolf, K-9, mike_ie, Neyite, Toots).

    I would also remind posters that there is a Report Post facility for when you see posts that you consider problematic and/or breach the charter.

    So anyone want to give some constructive feedback to improve the forum?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #225
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    ... and there are serious concerns about vastly greater atrocities carried out by Secularists from Revolutionary France ... to Communist Russia and on to Nazi Germany

    Do you not suppose that the Crusaders, had the technology been available to them, would have committed similar atrocities?

    Interesting seeds sown for later reaping...

    "In Germany the Crusaders massacred Jewish communities, an event known as the Rhineland massacres and the first major outbreak of European antisemitism".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades


    -

    There isn't much point in such tit for tat comparisons. Just because something is labelled Christian doesn't mean it is. Nor something labelled secular - Hitler and Stalin were psychopaths by any reasonable measure.


  • #226
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I think the difficulty you have here is that Christian themselves will often disagree about Christian beliefs. You could end up with a situation where a particular criticism could be made freely by a poster who identifies as Christian, while a non-Christian making the exact same criticism would be in breach of the rules. In other words, the board's position would become an ad hominem one; posts would be rejected because of who makes them, rather than because of what they say. I don't think that's the way we should be going. It makes Christianity look narrow and exclusive, which is pretty much the opposite of what it should be.

    It may not be easy to achieve, but I think the way forward here is to cultivate a culture of respect. People should be free to disagree, either from a Christian or non-Christian perspective, but they need to do so in a way which is respectful, and which promotes discussion rather than attempting to shut it down or to polarise it into extremes. Developing a culture like this is easier said than done, I grant, and it depends not just, or even not mainly, on the Mods but on the broad "middle ground" of participants in the Forum. But I think it's the way to go.

    It should, perhaps, be acceptable for someone opening a thread to indicate in the OP that he's looking specifically for Christian (or indeed for e.g. Catholic) perspectives on the topic, and the expectation should be that other posters should respect this. If other perspectives are referred to it should be, e.g. to compare and contrast, or to demonstrate how perspectives have changed, rather than for the purpose of asserting those perspectives as objectively true or superior. Posters who don't respect this principle would leave themselves open to disciplinary action, though that of course would be a matter for the mods.


  • #227
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    I agree to a point ... I sometimes thank Atheist postings for this reason as well.
    However, this doesn't explain the gross disparity in thanks numbers between atheist and christian posts ... unless you're arging that the average atheist posting is vastly more meritorious than the average Christian one ... which isn't the case IMO.

    The most plausible reason for the disparity in thanks is that the Atheists are much more cohesive than the Christians, at least when it comes to the postings from their own side.

    If this is the case, then it is a problem for the Christians to think about ... and not really any issue for the Atheists ... who seem to have it 'sussed' amongst themselves.
    People tend to not thank nonsense posts. You tend to post nonsense, ergo, you don't get many thanks. You claim to be a scientist, surely you could have worked this out yourself...?

    MrP


  • #228
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Delirium wrote: »
    So anyone want to give some constructive feedback to improve the forum?

    Another site I'm on includes community elected mods which works quite well. Perhaps let the Christians in the forum nominate and elect a Christian mod to join the group of existing mods. Could be that somebody such as antiskeptic, manach, peregrinus, mrs o'bumble or similar would remove the us and them feel that seems to pervade. Something like a few nominations, minimum number of posts on this forum in order to be nominated, and open poll for election (with A&A people asked to abstain / votes ignored).

    (Ducks head and leaves the room)

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #229
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    MrPudding wrote: »
    People tend to not thank nonsense posts. You tend to post nonsense, ergo, you don't get many thanks. You claim to be a scientist, surely you could have worked this out yourself...?

    MrP

    I have to say, I've seen more than a few nonsensical posts get thanked simply because they accord with a prevailing viewpoint, or because they disagree with a poster that the thankers disagree with too, regardless of the merit of what's said. I suspect, if you're honest, you've seen the same yourself; case in point posts which disagree with JC tend to get thanked in A&A even when they're no more than curmudgeonly ad hominems. It doesn't take a scientist to realise that's tribalism rather than meritocracy.


  • #230
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    It doesn't take a scientist to realise that's tribalism rather than meritocracy.

    Bit of both really. Whatever about the Christian forums, in the context of the A&A forums JCs posts don't have much merit to most regulars and of late have come across as poorly constructed, as per a point I raised here. They're also rather numerous and as such tend to attract quite an amount of ire, in much the same way that A&A posters seem to attract it on this forum.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #231
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    c_man wrote: »
    Yes, I used to an atheist. Years back when I was more of a regular poster. Is it still so interesting?

    I doubt there's anybody who actually believes that boards.ie is representative of society. You honestly don't, do you?! You poor sod.

    Nice, very Christian I'm sure. A real poster boy for the faith you've turned out to be.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    Bit of both really. Whatever about the Christian forums, in the context of the A&A forums JCs posts don't have much merit to most regulars and of late have come across as poorly constructed, as per a point I raised here. They're also rather numerous and as such tend to attract quite an amount of ire, in much the same way that A&A posters seem to attract it on this forum.
    I don't think so... ad hominems don't really have any merit in a discussion other than to those not interested in the discussion, which leaves only tribalism. I'll grant you there are those who will thank a post that disagrees with JC (whether it has merit or not) because they feel JCs view lacks merit, but again, that's tribalism.


  • #233
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'll grant you there are those who will thank a post that disagrees with JC (whether it has merit or not) because they feel JCs view lacks merit, but again, that's tribalism.

    Nope. If someone thanks a post because they concur with the content of the post or the sentiment it expresses, that is not tribalism. If they thanked the post because of who posted it, that would be tribalism.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #234
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    People tend to not thank nonsense posts. You tend to post nonsense, ergo, you don't get many thanks. You claim to be a scientist, surely you could have worked this out yourself...?

    MrP
    Very 'respectful' ... I must say ... are you getting paid to repeat the word 'nonsence'?
    ... or is it your strategy to throw enough mud and hope that some sticks ... or repeat the word 'nonsense' ad nauseum, in the hope that somebody will believe you ... rather than read what I post?

    ... and FYI I wasn't talking about myself ... I was talking about Christian posts in general.:(

    Your cynical personalised debating style is regrettable ... and a very bad advertisement for the Atheism you believe in.

    Rather than merely claiming that my posts are 'nonsense' ... you could try, for once, to show how this might be the case ... but of course, as it isn't the case ... you have to confine yourself to repeating unfounded personal insults against me.


  • #235
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    antiskeptic
    I really have no idea what you're talking about. Christians believe God created the world and everything in it - without their necessarily having to have an interest in the precise mechanics of how that came about. I for example, have no interest in the precise mechanics of it - let the atheists/scientists spanner and project and theorize all they like. At the end will come a scientific theory established to this or that degree. So what? Does a scientific theory saying "No God" trump that which I know to be the case?
    Maybe not for you ... but for many (probably most) people, their minds rule their hearts ... and if somebody claims to have 'cast-iron' scientific proof that the universe and all life could create itself (without any requirement for a God-like being in the process) then I think most rational people would abandon their belief in the existence of God ... why would they continue with a blind completely unsupported faith ... in something that objective reality supposedly shows to not exist?

    If everything could create itself, how could a Christian rationally continue to believe that God created it, like you say, all Christians should believe?

    If they conclude that God didn't create anything ... why would anybody logically believe anything else in the Bible about Him either?

    Indeed, why would they think that they owed Him any respect ... or even believe that He exists, in the first place?

    Some people can convince themselves of anything ... but the majority of rational people ... I think not.

    ... and that is why most children from Christian homes are losing their faith by the time they become teenagers ... and indeed, this trend is also happening amongst all age cohorts, right up to older people ... and I think that this is the prime reason for the 'non-functionality' of this forum, from a Christian perspective.
    We have cultural Christians coming here ... and wilting before the arguments being proffered by the atheists ... which often revolve about the superiority of their so-called 'rational/scientific' worldview ... over the Bible, which they dismiss as the writings of a 'Bronze Age Cult'.

    Unless, Christians can make cogent logical arguments that prove the existence of God ... telling people that 'God loves them' isn't going to 'cut much ice' ... if they don't bellieve He exists, in the first place ... its something like telling them that Superman (or any other fictional charater) loves them !!!


  • #236
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    Maybe not for you ... but for many (propably most) people, their minds rule their hearts ... and if somebody claims to have 'cast-iron' scientific proof that the universe and all life could create itself (without any requirement for a God-like being in the process) then I think that most rational people would abandon their belief in the existence of God ... why would they continue with a blind completely unsupported faith?

    If everything could create itself, how could a Christian rationally continue to believe that God created it?

    If they conclude that God didn't create anything ... why would anybody logically believe anything else in the Bible about Him?

    Indeed, why would they think that they owed Him any respect ... or even believe that He exists, in the first place.

    Some people can convince themselves of anything ... but the majority of rational people ... I think not.

    A Christian, to my mind, is a person who has been born again. That is to say, they have gone through a seismic and irreversible change which sees previously blind-to-God eyes and a previously dead/antagonistic-to-God spirit about turned. The now-seeing person "see's" God by virtue of his indwelling in them by his Spirit.

    By that measure, I couldn't give a rat's ass what science comes up with by way of making God redundant. Science, whilst enormously useful, needn't be considered by anybody as prime truth-giver. Certainly, I find no reason for it's conclusions to trump what I find to be a more compelling truth-giver.

    If anyone is a Christian (per the definition above) then I don't see a cause for concern. There is nothing irrational about setting science in a place other than No. 1

    You only need compelling reason to place something else there.

    I can't speak for other ways of defining what a Christian is. Which I'm not saying a person need to have the level of conviction I have in order to be a Christian, I would be supposing that God's indwelling would be sufficient not to cause a person to be concerned by science.

    You added this whilst I was typing to which I respond:
    ... and that is why most children from Christian homes are losing their faith by the time they become teenagers

    Were they Christians (per the definition above) or where they something else. Perhaps cultural Christians? I've seen dozens of teens come through church: young children attending with the parents, then bored teens .. then they stop coming altogether. They were never Christians - they never displayed any of the life the burns inside a Christian. Some do stay in - and display that life. But they are the very few.



    We have cultural Christians coming here ... and wilting before the arguments being proffered by the atheists ... which often revolve about the superiority of their so-called 'rational/scientific' worldview ... over the Bible, which they dismiss as the writings of a 'Bronze Age Cult'.

    But a cultural Christian isn't a Christian. Better off, to my mind, a cultural Christian being dislodged from a false sense of security, than being allowed to trundle on off the edge of an eternal cliff. Atheism is arguably doing them a favour. At least now they can face into the consequences of being an atheist - which might well provide the trouble and strife that results in them genuinely searching and considering the issue of God. It's not a certainty they will turn to God but that's not the case for anyone.
    Unless, Christians can make cogent logical arguments that prove the existence of God

    You cannot prove the existence of God. You can make arguments and the other side can make arguments. The only person who can prove God exists is God. And the way in which a person will be satisfied that God exists is God turning up for them in some compelling way
    ... telling people that 'God loves them' isn't going to 'cut much ice' ... if they don't bellieve He exists, in the first place ... its something like telling them that Superman (or any other fictional charater) loves them !!!

    As I say above, the place of apologetics is questionable for me. If the aim is to prove then you're wasting your time. If the aim is to be a vessel for what God might bring about in a person then fine. One of the most compelling thing for me, around the time I was (being) saved, wasn't anything that came out of the Bible but how it was these people, these Christians were: open, forthright, honest about their faith, friendly in a genuine way. There wasn't any of the edge or attempt at one-upmanship I experienced elsewhere all around me. They were different. They had something I and no one I knew around me had. It kept me coming back for more and so things progressed...

    God, I think, operates through us. He doesn't, however depend on us. Salvation is the power of God operating. It is he who opens eyes to his truth. Not the argument of man - no matter how well developed and no matter how well intentioned.


  • #237
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    A Christian, to my mind, is a person who has been born again. That is to say, they have gone through a seismic and irreversible change which sees previously blind-to-God eyes and a previously dead/antagonistic-to-God spirit about turned. The now-seeing person "see's" God by virtue of his indwelling in them by his Spirit.

    By that measure, I couldn't give a rat's ass what science comes up with by way of making God redundant. Science, whilst enormously useful, needn't be considered by anybody as prime truth-giver. Certainly, I find no reason for it's conclusions to trump what I find to be a more compelling truth-giver.

    If anyone is a Christian (per the definition above) then I don't see a cause for concern. There is nothing irrational about setting science in a place other than No. 1

    You only need compelling reason to place something else there.

    I can't speak for other ways of defining what a Christian is. Which I'm not saying a person need to have the level of conviction I have in order to be a Christian, I would be supposing that God's indwelling would be sufficient not to cause a person to be concerned by science.
    All fine for an already Saved Christian ... although even then, I would think that scientific developments that point definitively towards the existence of God would be of more than a passing interest to such a person.
    but ... when it comes to the unsaved ... it is disasterous to allow the current anti-God worldview within science and society to go unchallenged ... it is a part of the Great Commission to go forth and teach all nations ... it doesn't say to go forth and speak pious platitudes (or a message of "I'm allright Jack") ... and hope that they might be Saved, as a result.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Were they Christians (per the definition above) or where they something else. Perhaps cultural Christians? I've seen dozens of teens come through church: young children attending with the parents, then bored teens .. then they stop coming altogether. They were never Christians - they never displayed any of the life the burns inside a Christian. Some do stay in - and display that life. But they are the very few.
    They weren't saved ... and they are unlikely to be saved ... if they think that science disproves the need for and existence of God.
    Barring a miracle, no matter how strongly God calls them ... they will resist, if their minds tells them that He doesn't exist, in the first place.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But a cultural Christian isn't a Christian. Better off, to my mind, a cultural Christian being dislodged from a false sense of security, than being allowed to trundle on off the edge of an eternal cliff. Atheism is arguably doing them a favour. At least now they can face into the consequences of being an atheist - which might well provide the trouble and strife that results in them genuinely searching and considering the issue of God. It's not a certainty they will turn to God but that's not the case for anyone.
    That's going to happen anyway, on the basis of 'reaping what they sow' ... but whether they turn to God ... or in on themselves when the going gets really tough will depend on whether they actually can bring themselves to believe that He exists, in the first place ... and if a Christian tells you that "I couldn't give a rat's ass what science comes up with by way of making God redundant" ... somebody listening to that, just might believe that God is redundant.


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You cannot prove the existence of God. You can make arguments and the other side can make arguments. The only person who can prove God exists is God. And the way in which a person will be satisfied that God exists is God turning up for them in some compelling way.
    You can indeed prove that God exists and the Bible confirms this:-

    Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)

    20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As I say above, the place of apologetics is questionable for me. If the aim is to prove then you're wasting your time. If the aim is to be a vessel for what God might bring about in a person then fine. One of the most compelling thing for me, around the time I was (being) saved, wasn't anything that came out of the Bible but how it was these people, these Christians were: open, forthright, honest about their faith, friendly in a genuine way. There wasn't any of the edge or attempt at one-upmanship I experienced elsewhere all around me. They were different. They had something I and no one I knew around me had. It kept me coming back for more and so things progressed...
    They were nice guys and persistent ... but then most good salespeople are nice guys and persistent.
    Good salespeople are also good at explaining the features of their product ... and in the case of God, an important feature is that He exists, in the first place.
    ... and remember that good salesmanship exists on the other side as well.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God, I think, operates through us. He doesn't, however depend on us. Salvation is the power of God operating. It is he who opens eyes to his truth. Not the argument of man - no matter how well developed and no matter how well intentioned.
    That is quite true ... but we are Human ... and we do need to be helped in our unbelief ... and God can only do so much, with people who have free will.
    ... otherwise why have churches at all?
    ... why not hide our light under a bushel ... and leave it all to God, if you are correct?


  • #238
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    All fine for an already Saved Christian ... although even then, I would think that scientific developments that point definitively towards the existence of God would be of more than a passing interest to such a person.

    I wouldn't be holding my breath. It seems to me that the enabling of a choice against God is as central to things as a choice for. Whilst God want's that none perish, he is, it appears intent on giving us a choice.

    A definitive proof kind of throws a spanner in those works.


    but ... when it comes to the unsaved ... it is disasterous to allow the current anti-God worldview within science and society to go unchallenged ... it is a part of the Great Commission to go forth and teach all nations ... it doesn't say to go forth and speak pious platitudes (or a message of "I'm allright Jack") ... and hope that they might be Saved, as a result.

    I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I would question some of the paradigms applied by body Christianity to that task. For example: the notion that a proof of God can be developed.

    You could, for example, propagate the opinion (if I've read him correctly) of Oldrnwsr. He appears to think that there isn't any way to decide on how the universe came about / how life got going. "Because the murder victim has already been cremated" was how he put it. A healthy, honest agnosticism in my view.
    They weren't saved ... and they are unlikely to be saved ... if they think that science disproves the need for and existence of God.
    Barring a miracle, no matter how strongly God calls them ... they will resist, if their minds tells them that He doesn't exist, in the first place.

    My own view is that God has set up a mechanism of salvation which enables a free willed choice, ultimately. God is able to take account of a persons intelligence, their upbringing, their education, the society they were raised in, the religion they were raised in or none. There is nothing the atheist agenda can do about that.

    If a persons chances of salvation hinge on anyone else but themselves, ultimately, then any half-rate junior brief will be able to get them off the hook. If I am convinced of anything it is that God is just. In both the positive and negative sense of the word. No one will have an excuse - there will be no "Dawkinsdidit".

    I might add personal testimony to counter your point. The first moment I believed God existed was after I was saved. That is the sequence: God saves, God turns up to now opened eyes, man believes in God.



    That's going to happen anyway, on the basis of 'reaping what they sow' ... but whether they turn to God ... or in on themselves when the going gets really tough will depend on whether they actually can bring themselves to believe that He exists,

    The personal experience recounted above is testified to in the Bible. The thief on the cross is hurling insults at Jesus. He clearly doesn't believe in this God. Then he see's who Jesus is. This isn't due to him being exposed to cultural Christianity or going to a faith school. His eyes were opened - the salvation transaction had just occurred and as a result, he now saw who Jesus was.

    Notice the dependency on the person in what you say above. Salvation is of them, it depends on them., Not so, salvation .. the whole kit and kiboodle is of God. All the way.


    if a Christian tells you that "I couldn't give a rat's ass what science comes up with by way of making God redundant" ... somebody listening to that, just might believe that God is redundant.

    They might think otherwise if they read the whole sentence rather than the portion you quote. They would see the view expressed that science isn't the be all and end all. That it is seen as redundant when it steps outside it's brief.



    You can indeed prove that God exists and the Bible confirms this:-

    Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)

    20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    I think you'll find that that's a proof God can use. Because God can demonstrate to each individual, to that persons satisfaction (and beyond that persons ability to be able to deny it), that such was the case.

    That is quite different to me or you proving it. In our hands, that verse represents a currency that simply isn't accepted in the land of the blind. In the natural sense that is. Of course, God's word can speak into a person and convict and so it can certainly have application. But as a rational proof? Forget it.

    They were nice guys and persistent ... but then most good salespeople are nice guys and persistent.

    Not so. They genuinely had something. And it showed. Sure they were eager to share what they had. But they weren't flogging anything.

    They also are good at explaining the features of their product ... and in the case of God, an important feature is that He exists, in the first place.

    You don't have to believe me but I'm telling like it is. It was the lights going on supernaturally that did it - not someone explaining things to me. They explained things to others in the same way they did to me and ZIP. No eyes opening and nothing would have happened.

    That is quite true ... but we are Human ... and we do need to be helped in our unbelief ... and God can only do so much, with people who have free will.
    ... otherwise why have churches at all?
    ... why not hide our light under a bushel ... and leave it all to God, if you are correct?

    I'm not suggesting doing nothing. But I don't think we need to struggle desperately to prove God. I don't think we need to defend God. We don't need to grip limpet-like to the remnants of power left over from what was probably (or probably became) an abomination in terms of Christs church on earth. We don't need to try to shackle already lost teens up, as if by bible bashing them and making them attend church that anything is going to change. Yes, always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have. But not force our way in the world. For that is what I say we don't need to do above. They are all examples of forcing the situation.


  • #239
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    Nope. If someone thanks a post because they concur with the content of the post or the sentiment it expresses, that is not tribalism. If they thanked the post because of who posted it, that would be tribalism.
    That's my point; thanking a post simply because it disagrees with someone you disagree with is tribalism. As is the case with those ad hominems; the content and sentiment are no more than opportunistic slurs with no merit in the discussion, they get thanked because the content and sentiment is intended to hurt a poster, and some posters are small enough to like seeing that, and want to be seen to identify with those who do it.


  • #240
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wouldn't be holding my breath. It seems to me that the enabling of a choice against God is as central to things as a choice for. Whilst God want's that none perish, he is, it appears intent on giving us a choice.

    A definitive proof kind of throws a spanner in those works.
    As Jesus Christ proved ... even by raising the dead in front of them, which was a fairly definitive proof of His divinity, doesn't mean that Humans will stampede to be Saved ... so, I wouldn't worry that proving the existence of God ... won't give people any choice in whether to be Saved or not.:)
    ... and in a country, where Christian churches are 'on the ropes' ... whilst secularism is in the ascendent, I wouldn't be into giving them any 'sporting chances' to further their anti-God agendas at the expense of Christianity.
    There is none so blind as those who will not see ... but for everyone else, proving that God exists, could be the difference between them deciding to be Saved and not doing so.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I would question some of the paradigms applied by body Christianity to that task. For example: the notion that a proof of God can be developed.

    You could, for example, propagate the opinion (if I've read him correctly) of Oldrnwsr. He appears to think that there isn't any way to decide on how the universe came about / how life got going. "Because the murder victim has already been cremated" was how he put it. A healthy, honest agnosticism in my view.
    ... Firstly, such a POV isn't shared by the media and other organs of secularism and science ... which claims definitively that they have proof that everything created itself ... and that there is no need for God, in the process.
    Either way, if we have proof that God exists, I can understand why atheists might resist such information with its potential to destroy their worldview ... what is less understandable is why Christians should be so reticent about hearing about any proofs for the existence of God.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My own view is that God has set up a mechanism of salvation which enables a free willed choice, ultimately. God is able to take account of a persons intelligence, their upbringing, their education, the society they were raised in, the religion they were raised in or none. There is nothing the atheist agenda can do about that.

    If a persons chances of salvation hinge on anyone else but themselves, ultimately, then any half-rate junior brief will be able to get them off the hook. If I am convinced of anything it is that God is just. In both the positive and negative sense of the word. No one will have an excuse - there will be no "Dawkinsdidit".
    I agree ... but people do influence each other ... for good or ill ... and therefore if we know something that might influence people for their own good and everyone else's, we should shout it from the rooftops.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I might add personal testimony to counter your point. The first moment I believed God existed was after I was saved. That is the sequence: God saves, God turns up to now opened eyes, man believes in God.
    That can be the sequence for some people ... others believe in the existence of God first ... and subsequently believe on Jesus Christ to Save them.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The personal experience recounted above is testified to in the Bible. The thief on the cross is hurling insults at Jesus. He clearly doesn't believe in this God. Then he see's who Jesus is. This isn't due to him being exposed to cultural Christianity or going to a faith school. His eyes were opened - the salvation transaction had just occurred and as a result, he now saw who Jesus was.

    Notice the dependency on the person in what you say above. Salvation is of them, it depends on them., Not so, salvation .. the whole kit and kiboodle is of God. All the way.
    Fair point ... but there is a free-willed interaction also going on between God and man ... so it's not all of God ... Humans can frustrate God's hopes for our salvation by helping turn people away from God ... or conversely, they can help with turning them towards God.
    It seems pretty obvious that all of the scandals revealed over the past 20 years about the Roman Catholic Church is directly linked to its precipituous decline within Irish Society ... and God has had very little to do with it, as the disaster they find themselves in was largely self-inflicted. Here is an example of Humans being resposible for turning away thousands of people from God and Christianity.
    If you are correct and it's God all the way ... why would any Christian take the Great Commission seriously, to go forth and teach all nations baptising them ... if God is going to do it all, anyway?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting doing nothing. But I don't think we need to struggle desperately to prove God. I don't think we need to defend God. We don't need to grip limpet-like to the remnants of power left over from what was probably (or probably became) an abomination in terms of Christs church on earth. We don't need to try to shackle already lost teens up, as if by bible bashing them and making them attend church that anything is going to change. Yes, always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have. But not force our way in the world. For that is what I say we don't need to do above. They are all examples of forcing the situation.
    ... agreed ... but the opposite side isn't at all reticent about blowing their own trumpets ... and 'forcing the situation', as you call it!!!
    ... and it has to be said ... they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams ... largely because of a moribund Christian community ... that is afraid to open their mouths to do anything, because they apparently believe that God will do it all for them ... despite all evidence pointing to the contrary!!!:)

    ... they seem to have forgotten the truism that God helps those who help themselves ... and largely leaves those who don't, to their own devices. :)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Yes, always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have.
    ... and what are the reasons for your hope, beyond your faith in Jesus Christ ... which your average unsaved person would discount immediately as an unfounded belief in somebody who lived and died 2,000 years ago.
    As a fellow Saved Christian, my primary hope is vested in Jesus Christ also ... but it under-girded by the knowledge that God exists and can be proven by empirical means to exist ... and that second reason, for the hope that is within me, is going to be given more weight initially by an unsaved person ... and if you doubt me, try going over to the A & A and telling them that you can prove empirically that God exists !!!:)
    ... or stay here and say so ... and they'll come to you !!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    @JC and anti, any chance you could take your discussion to another thread so as to allow this thread to be for feedback on improving the forum?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement