Thanks G.E. and sorry for the delay in my response. Things are busy around here. I appreciate your patience. I haven't asked you yet what he is lying about. How can he be lying? He quotes the scriptures and stands on biblical truth. The only other explanation would be that God is lying and we've already established that that can't happen.
You said, "In any event, I never heard of a Bible edited for atheists"
I know I had never heard of it as well. Leave it to Ray Comfort though. He's always coming up with new and fresh ways to reach those that don't know Christ. I have several to give a way to atheists. Too bad you weren't one. :-)
Just to give you a quick example of the inside. "The Atheist Bible" is the the Holman Bible Outreach" version, without any changes to the text. The only additions inside the bible are the commentary portions.
For example, speaking about the Christian before he was saved and what Christ did on the cross for the Christian... listen to what Colossians 2: 13-14 says (again, this is taken out of the Atheist Bible): "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
And Ray's commentary says the following, "With each sin, we rack up dept to the Law, and will have hell to pay."
And another example: Colossians 3:6 says, "Because of these the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience..."
Here's Ray's commentary on that particular verse, "It is a deep concern for the unsaved that makes the Christian want to warn this world that God is not a celestial Santa Claus. He is holy, righteous, and just. It is because of these eternal attributes that He sees those who disobey His Law as children of wrath. See John 3:36."
G.E. Can you give me evidence that proves that God's wrath is NOT upon the sons of disobedience? I have found none. It will be a fearful day for those who do not have Christ atoning fo their sins. Please flee the wrath of God to come by trusting in Christ today.
I know I sound like a broken record but I can't help it. I must warn you. And now I'll quote from the mouth of Penn Gillette (the famous atheist--who said of himself "I am beyond atheist"), This will explain why I do what I do. Here's Penn's quote, "If you believe that there’s a Heaven and Hell, and people could be going to Hell, or not getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that, well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward . . . How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you -- there is a certain point where I tackle you --and this is more important than that."
24 comments:
Trish said 'Thanks G.E. and sorry for the delay in my response. Things are busy around here. I appreciate your patience. I haven't asked you yet what he is lying about. How can he be lying?'
Trish, i have only been reading Ray's blog for a little while and i have to support G.E.'s point here, Ray insists on using straw man fallacies and clearly incorrect statements in his posts, he even repeats the same statements after he has been corrected, once could be a mistake but twice is deliberate, deliberatly saying something you know to be false in lieing. I am sure he is completly accurate in his quoting of scripture, however that is not what GE is talking about. besides i am sure there is something in the bible about the devil using scripture to mislead, i am not suggesting that Ray is evil, arrogant and opininated perhaps but not evil, but simplt because he can quote scripture does not mean that he always tells the truth.
Trish said 'G.E. Can you give me evidence that proves that God's wrath is NOT upon the sons of disobedience?'
Again with this prove that x is false, you are making, or supporting an extraordinary claim, it is for you to display evidence that it is true, untill then i will continue to act in all ways as if it is false, otherwise we are stuck back or Bertrands Teapot.
Concerning the 'Athiest Bible' what makes it Athiest centric? by definition it has no relevance to an atiest out side of an important historical document, so unless it is a very dry analysis of the literary quality of the writting I fail to see what could be atheistic about it.
Trish, you have used a quote from Penn, could you possibly sight the original source it came from, owing to what i know of the beliefs and feelings of Penn I have to assume that there is a wider context to this quote.
For Logic Lad,
Here is the link to Penn Jillette's entire video post on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM
Hope it helps.
I think Trish quoted the part that reflect her own feelings about sharing the gospel with the lost. Those are my feelings as well. G.E.knows that.
Craig B.
Thanks Logic Lad, that was helpful. And yes, Penn did say something like that. I saw the video, and it does make sense. The overall message is that it is understandable why Christian would insist upon atheists.
Trish,
Thanks for your answer. Then again, you were talking about a Bible commented by non-other than Ray Comfort. Since I know for certain that ray is a professional liar, I cannot but reject your offer and thank you again. Furthermore, the part of the Bible that you post shows that I did not need Ray's comment to understand what the passage was saying. Not at all. Ray might not lie when it comes to the Bible, I grant you that. Yet, if I find him to be either a liar, or ... sorry, but ... well ... bearing an intelligence well below the average, then why would I want a Bible commented by him? He might even mislead my reading by interpreting the Bible the wrong way.
Logic Lad commented on how Ray lies. I know he lies because he misrepresents everything I know about science out of me knowing what such sciences actually state.
One example is evolution. His video on evolution clearly misrepresents evolution, and he continues to do so in his blog, and wherever else. Note though that I am not trying to convince you that evolution is true. I am saying that what Ray attacks is not even remotely close to the true theory. It is what is called a strawman. Something made to "appear" like the right thing, but that is much easier to attack and defeat (like fighting against a man made of straw).
So, even if you were truly able to convince me that "the Bible does not lie", Ray does. So, if by implication of the Bible not lying evolution were false, then it would be false. Yet, it would still not be the same as the strawman Ray talks about.
A more recent example of his dishonesty is his "atheists believe that nothing made everything", which he has posted way too many times, and on which he was corrected more than 100 times that. I have made it clear in many ways that most atheists do not thinks of "nothing" as producing something, but rather natural processes as being behind the origin of the universe.
Yeah, lots of scientific explanations (which are not the same as atheistic explanations necessarily), might use the term "nothing" for metaphorical purposes, while trying to explain something to the neophyte. Ignoring that not all scientists are atheists, and that metaphors are imperfect, and all the explanations forwarded to him is to lie. Once can be an honest mistake. After so many corrections it can only be willingness to lie.
He can say he just wants to bait atheists into posting in his blog. Yet, if the method is lying, I can only assume that his gain, whichever it is, is much more important than the supposed values he would get from being a Christian. In fewer words, he is just a charlatan. A demonstrably one for those who will not close their eyes to the evidence.
As I said, I have a couple Bibles at home, and can read more versions on line. So, no need to get one with comments by Ray.
G.E.
Logic Lad,
Yes, there is a wider context to Penn's comment. The whole thing was that he got a Bible (well, New Testament) from some guy, and he accepted it because, despite he is an atheist, and proud so, he does understand why a Christian would give him a Bible.
Actualy, I understand that too. Which is why I mostly try to explain things, such as science to people. I find it detestable for charlatans to lie to those who trust them, and try to get things straight. Sometimes it seems impossible. Yet I expect that, at the very least, some people will read the stuff and learn something of science, and about good reasoning. This way we might be contributing something.
G.E.
Oh Trish,
So sorry, you had another question about God's wrath.
The thing is, I am not trying to convince you to be an atheist. Also, it is not a good question. You cannot prove that the wrath of Allah is not upon the sons of disobedience, or the wrath of so many other Gods who will condemn those who dare not to believe in them. This is why logically, it is the one making the claim who should have proof. Otherwise, it is an empty claim.
Again, I know you feel quite sure about it. Yet, it does not make sense to me. Thus, it does not work.
Have a great weekend,
G.E.
Thanks Maxx
I was fairly sure that he was being quoted out of context, nice to know I was right. Also nice that i find this out in a post concerning lieing.
Trish,
I have to apologize about one thing I said. You actually do not need to demonstrate that the Bible is not lying. I think we should be careful with our terms, and here it was my fault. If the Bible contans false claims and beliefs, it does not mean it lies, it just means that those who wrote it did not have the information necessary, and / or they truly believed what they were saying. Thus, technically, if everything were false, it could still not be a lie. It would be false, even false beliefs, but not a lie.
Now, if it contains things put there on purpose to misguide people (which it could), then those parts would be lies. But I cannot know, I can only suppose.
G.E.
Logic Lad said,
"Thanks Maxx
I was fairly sure that he was being quoted out of context, nice to know I was right. Also nice that i find this out in a post concerning lieing."
Logic Lad,
I'm not sure how you mean Trish's use of the quote from Penn's video post was taken out of context. Please explain that more to me, if it is convenient for you to do so.
It appears to me that she used the quote to explain her motivation to warn you of your eternal life apart from God if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, as she said in the original post, "This will explain why I do what I do." In reviewing Penn's post, it looks to me that the full intent of that part of his post was accurately represented in Trish's post, even if it was perhaps not done verbatim. Penn was clearly commending the man who presented him with a Bible and proselytizing to him, sharing with us that he can understand and appreciate that if a person truly believes that you are going to end up in Hell for eternity, then for that person to warn you of that fate is an honorable and correct thing to do.
To me, that is what Trish was explaining to G.E. as why she must warn him of the wrath of God.
All other subjects aside for the moment, I just wanted to be sure you were clear as to why I was offering the full video post, which was to focus on the fact that Trish's quote, in the context of explaining her motivation to evangelize, was on the mark with Penn's video post. Sorry if I did not make that clear from the beginning, I hope we can agree at least on this small part.
Hi G.E.
"...it is the one making the claim [that the wrath of God is upon the sons of disobedience] who should have proof. Otherwise, it is an empty claim."
If the bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, isn't it God himself who is making the claim?
Craig
All
I apologise for making it look like i was accusing Trish of lieing, having carefully reread her origianl post it is clear what her meaning is. I shall take away the lesson that i should really read what is written. Having watched the video i fully appreciate the sentiment that if you believe then you have to do as much as you can to help those you percieve as lost. I will try to bare this in mind when addressing future posts. I understand why you feel the need to convert people, however that does not mean that i have to agree with you, I believe that religion leads society into horrible dark places, what would it say of me if i did not try to protect others from it?
Stranger.
I know this is obvious but
quote 'If the bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, isn't it God himself who is making the claim?'
That is a big if, requiring the same level of extraodinary evidence that was G.E's point.
I am afraid using the bible to prove god is right and then using god to prove the bible is right is the worst kind of circular logic.
Melvin said 'The Almighty God of the Bible is just and loving. He alone has the authority to proclaim what is just. He decided that the penalty of sin is death. He decided to accept the freely given sacrifice of His Son Jesus as just payment for the sins of all. Thanks be to God.
You may reject the offer of salvation through faith in Christ but you lack the power and authority to recind the just law of sin and death enacted by the Creator. If you decline the only remedy, then you will suffer the consequences and this by your own choice.
God loves you but will not force Himself on you. He does, by virtue of His authority, impose His will on you by condemnation of the faithless [John 3: 18].
In the love of Christ,
-Mel'
Sorry, but we where having a fairly reasonable conversation and again someone has to wade in with the eternal torment thing. I know this will not be the last time this is said but given that the athiests who post here don't believe in Hell there is little point in threatening us with it. As an aside if the 'love' of Christ is shown by eternally torturing those who fail to beg for his forgivness it clearly has a very different meaning to the one I am using.
Hey Craig,
If the bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, isn't it God himself who is making the claim?
Then there is much more to prove:
1. That there is at least one God
2. That the Bible is the word of such God
3. That it was inspired by the Holy spirit
In any event, Trish asked me if I can prove that the wrath of God is not upon us. While logically it is the positive claim that should be logically proven (otherwise we would be forced to prove any kind of propositions to be false, such as the famous teapot orbiting the sun), I rather point out that I am not trying to convince anybody that they should be atheists. And thus, if I am to be "converted" into Christianity, then the proof should come from those claiming that the wrath of God is upon me. Or else, that the claim comes from such a God.
G.E.
That crazy little tea pot. Every time it makes it's appearance in someone's comment it is orbiting a different sphere. It does so like to get around. : )
Hey G.E.
I was suggesting that God does back up his warning that his wrath remains on the sons of disobedience with tokens that we experience every day. You can't look around at the world and not sense that something has gone terribly wrong. We seem to have an inate sense that there is an order of how things should be, but that it has been violated.
I've never heard of an atheist upon knowing of some horrible injustice say, "Well that is just what we should expect in the course of societal evolution." No, he /she says, "NO! That is wrong!"
The life and teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been recorded, preserved and propagated throughout the world. It is from that witness that the church preaches.
Now we believe that God is present and active in the preaching of the gospel. Also, that he is active in the world through what is called providence. Providence happens.
What do you think?
Craig B.
Craig,
Firstly, a theological claim would require theological proof. Trisha's claim is that the God of the Bible has poured out his wrath upon society etc. This is a theological claim that can only be answered *theologically* if we'd like to see empirical evidence we can point to social issues, and travesties such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.
So, Trish is being consistent with her worldview.
That being said to demand empirical proof regardning an theological claim cannot be done given that empirical proof is naturalistic and theology is supernatural.
Sorry, but we where having a fairly reasonable conversation and again someone has to wade in with the eternal torment thing.
Well, a 'reasonable' conversation doesn't preclude the fact that the people engaging in it do not hold to this belief. You will suffer in hell, and I work on this assumption even when I am being reasonable. Why do you hate this threat so much? You dont believe it anyway.
I know this will not be the last time this is said but given that the athiests who post here don't believe in Hell there is little point in threatening us with it.
If that is the case then just ignore our 'threats' and continue in the conversation.
As an aside if the 'love' of Christ is shown by eternally torturing those who fail to beg for his forgivness it clearly has a very different meaning to the one I am using.
Of course its a different meaning. The love of Christ isn't shown to those in hell. The wrath of God is, and its eternal. The mercy of God to those he has predestined to salvatoin is shown to those who see his judgement on those in hell.
Then there is much more to prove:
1. That there is at least one God
2. That the Bible is the word of such God
3. That it was inspired by the Holy spirit
G_E ,
There are many assumptions that are taken for granted in all worldviews, that allow for a consistent constructoin of the given worldview. For example, you assume the consistency of nature, and your perceptions as well as the ability of your sensations to know the outside world. But you dont know this for sure. Likewise Christians have the same epistemic rights to assume that the scripture is the infallible word of God because it says so.
Stranger said 'I've never heard of an atheist upon knowing of some horrible injustice say, "Well that is just what we should expect in the course of societal evolution." No, he /she says, "NO! That is wrong!"'
Of course they do, as has been said before just because we dont beleive in a god does no mean that we can't empathise and feel upset for the difficulties of others, i would point out it is far more common for a theist to brush off harsh happenings with 'it was all god / the gods will' rather than actualy engaging with the suffering of others. While intellectualy i can except that bad stuff just happens, it doesn't mean that i have to like the results.
I suspect every generation from earliest man onwards has looked back at the past and said 'it was all better then' you naturally tend to remember the good things and nostalgia makes them seem even better, I think the Monty Python 4 yorkshiremen sketch sums this up wonderfully.
Javier Said '
a theological claim would require theological proof'
I couldn't agree more, but part of the point of this conversation is that we don't agree that theology has a solid basis. when asking the question does god exist it is rather irrelevant how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If God can have any real impact on this world, then he must be acting within nature, hence he is natural, hence the effect should be measurable and deffineable, if he can't act on this world what exactly is his purpose?
Javier Said 'Well, a 'reasonable' conversation doesn't preclude the fact that the people engaging in it do not hold to this belief. You will suffer in hell, and I work on this assumption even when I am being reasonable. Why do you hate this threat so much? You dont believe it anyway.'
No I don't believe it and so what it does is make me think less of a person who feels that the only way they can make their point is with threats, this is a perception thing, you are completly entitled to believe what you want but you have to bare in mind the effect that sharing those beliefs with other people will do. If someone, in the middle of a conversation, mentions that they are sure that they are the reincarnation of King Henry VIII then you might just decide that there opinions on other matters have to be viewed in a certain light. If the only argument that someone can come up with is to make a threat then that will effect how i treat their other statements, ps before anyone goes off on one I am not trying to equate religion with mental illness it is an example only.
I thought love had a deffinition as set down in a dictionary, apparently it doesn't, as the love of Christ is not the same as the common or garden love us humans have, please define the love of Christ in a way that makes it clear what you mean by it. Preferably without using the word love in the deffinition.
Javier Said 'There are many assumptions that are taken for granted in all worldviews, that allow for a consistent constructoin of the given worldview. For example, you assume the consistency of nature, and your perceptions as well as the ability of your sensations to know the outside world. But you dont know this for sure. Likewise Christians have the same epistemic rights to assume that the scripture is the infallible word of God because it says so.'
Again i agree, there have to be assumptions to allow us to operate in the real world, however the whole point of this conversation is that we are challenging the basis of each others world view. and as I mentioned before using the bible to prove god and then using god to prove the bible is a fallacy, I except that this is the basis of your worldview and that the above statment is sufficent for you, but it is not evidence it is faith, all GE and I are asking for is evidence, because the existence of evidence is a basic assumption of our world view, well i guess it is i cannot speak for GE as i only know him from his posts here.
Just a question Javier, can you understand the point about the circular argument concerning God and the Bible, I am not asking you to agree i just want to make sure that you see why from a faithless point of view it is not a complelling argument?
@Javier
LOL at myself. I have to admit that your comment to me was completely over my head, and I don't know how it relates to my previous comment. If you have the time, could you email me,(see profile) and explain what you said. : )
Thank you.
Craig B.
Javier,
No. Stay here. Don't move to email.
I want to hear you break down your comment to Craig.
I'm not the sharpest tack in the box myself... :-)
Trish
Thanks, Trish.
Craig
Hi Craig,
Had not seen these ones. Sorry.
You made a big comment about things going wrong around us, and atheists saying "it is wrong" rather than saying "this is the natural evolution of society". I can answer Craig.
1. The problems of the world are not due to God's wrath. It is easy to see that we made the mess.
2. Atheists may or may not think it is the natural evolution of societies. I doubt that would be an easy claim to do for scientists who are also atheists. We do not know what a natural evolution of society could be. Sociologists (serious ones), might become cynical and just live while it lasts. I for one prefer to think we might be able to do something, but I have to blind my reason in order to stay positive. Does that mean it is God? Nope. I think it is instinct of survival plus years of living within a society that values life (as far as I have reached).
Best,
G.E.
Javier,
If Trish asks me to prove that the wrath of God is not upon us, she is not asking for theological arguments. Is she? If she is, then she should ask you, not me. I have no use for such arguments.
G.E.
Hi again Javier,
I agree that you can think that the Bible is true because it says so. That is your option. But it is not logical to expect everybody to just believe the whole thing just because you believe it.
As Logic Lad said. It is a fallacy. It might be fine for you, but it is a fallacy for anybody who does not buy into it.
I hope this is clear. I am not trying to convince you guys to stop being Christians. I am trying to show you how your arguments fail, and how they look from "the outside."
G.E.
To G.E. (re. God's abiding wrath.)
Actually it is not one over the other. We believe in a God of providence. The way he most often works is through second causes, nature, human agency, etc. He directs certain events to alert us to the danger we are in. If you don't believe that there is a God, of course you won't see events as coming from his hand.
If you are under God's wrath and know it, you might be alarmed and wake up to your danger. The one who doesn't realize it is like someone who has disconnected the smoke detector.
Craig
Post a Comment