Absolutely CANNOT stand atheists who purposely try to rustle Christian jimmies

[Meatros]

I'm not arguing, I'm simply trying to show you something. I'm well aware that my logic is incredibly horrible, I'm trying to show you something beyond logic.

Logic is related to coherence. When you say 'something beyond logic', I can only assume you mean something beyond the normal everyday experience. If you literally mean 'beyond logic' you aren't making any sense.

[JacquesRoux]

LOL you're ****ing retarded

religion has done a great deal you fool.

- It was religion that the first laws were created, such as, "man should not kill" and then came justice, like prisons.

Lmao no. Earliest discovered codified laws were the laws of Hammurabi... in a context which didn't involve religion.

How you can think religion created the first laws I have no idea. You do realize people stopped being hunter gatherers like 6000 years ago (ironically, when the earth is supposed to have been created)... big communities developed, how do you think they functioned? Obviously there were laws and judges...

[InfinityThor]

Logic is related to coherence. When you say 'something beyond logic', I can only assume you mean something beyond the normal everyday experience. If you literally mean 'beyond logic' you aren't making any sense.

I literally mean beyond logic. If it was within logic, I could explain it to you within a single post.

[DEVBRUH]

A fellow Christian on fb made a good post:

"As for me And my household, we choose to believe. If I'm wrong what have I lost ? If you choose not to believe and your wrong, what have you lost?"

Something to think about

This is actually a spot-on example of how religious people have such trouble with logic and reason. The post makes it seem like the only rational choice is to believe regardless of who's right. The conclusion is solid, it's the premise it's based on that's completely retarded. That premise assumes that if a divine deity exists, it must be the one described in the Bible and therefore will abide by biblical principles such as entry into heaven or hell. In reality however, there are infinite possibilities as to how a divine deity would manifest itself and what purpose it would have with the universe (specifically mankind). The Bible is merely the user manual to one of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore, the odds of the Christians (or any other religion for that matter) having the right belief equals 1/∞ (= 0%). In extension this means there's a 0% chance of going to either heaven or hell because there's a 0% chance either concept as described in the Bible actually exists and has those particular entry requirements.

Non-believing and believing in a Christian god are not collectively exhaustive options; non-believing and believing in any type of god are.

[DennisR1977]

Dude in red = complete scum

Would KO if met in real life

How Christian of you!!!

[CuriousGM]

This thread actually turned into a serious conversation? I totally expected pages of pure circlejerk.

[Meatros]

I literally mean beyond logic. If it was within logic, I could explain it to you within a single post.

[XPmpnII]

Pascal's wager for like the 6th time in this thread.

It's not Pascal's wager because I don't just believe in God. I have accepted him into my heart and I believe that he died on the cross for my sins. If my beliefs meant laying my life on the line, I would do it without hesitation.

That, by definition, is not Pascal's wager.

"On the surface, Pascal's wager seems like a no-brainer. One should believe because in believing you either lose nothing or gain everything. However, the unstated assumption in the wager is that belief in God guarantees one a place in heaven. With regard to Christianity, the assumption is false. Belief in God, in and of itself, is not sufficient to ensure entry into heaven, since the demons also believe, but are condemned"

[Meatros]

It's not Pascal's wager because I don't just believe in God. I have accepted him into my heart and I believe that he died on the cross for my sins. If my beliefs meant laying my life on the line, I would do it without hesitation.

That, by definition, is not Pascal's wager.

"On the surface, Pascal's wager seems like a no-brainer. One should believe because in believing you either lose nothing or gain everything. However, the unstated assumption in the wager is that belief in God guarantees one a place in heaven. With regard to Christianity, the assumption is false. Belief in God, in and of itself, is not sufficient to ensure entry into heaven, since the demons also believe, but are condemned"

Actually it is Pascal's wager.

The reason it's flawed is that we both could be wrong - Hinduism or Zoroastrianism could be correct and then we'd both be tortured by Ahiriman.

[InfinityThor]

Look back at my previous post, I gave 2 clear examples that are true, but can't be expressed using logic. This is a very limited way of explaining something that is limitless, but it is a logical way at least that you will be able to understand.

There is a lot to life that you have not yet experienced. That is why it's important to not believe anything, it will cause you stagnate and stop seeking.

There is a single truth of life, the only way it is. That is not relevant though, because if it is not within your experience, it is not true to you.

[XPmpnII]

Actually it is Pascal's wager.

The reason it's flawed is that we both could be wrong - Hinduism or Zoroastrianism could be correct and then we'd both be tortured by Ahiriman.

Maybe you should read up on Pascal's wager if you still think that what I'm saying still fits that. I just pulled it up and it's no longer considered that if you believe in the resurrection of Christ. Pascal's wager is based off of just simply believing. It's stating that that isn't sufficient since even satan and the demons believe

I mean, how hard is this to really grasp? Some of you atheists seem to think you have an answer for everything, don't you?

[IsoMaxx]

Annoying atheists are the new trend for some reason.

[GregariousWolf]

Some of you atheists seem to have an answer for everything, don't you?

Yes, we do. That's why we rustle your jimmies.

[InfinityThor]

Maybe you should read up on Pascal's wager if you still think that what I'm saying still fits that. I just pulled it up and it's no longer considered that if you believe in the resurrection of Christ. Pascal's wager is based off of just simply believing. It's stating that that isn't sufficient since even satan and the demons believe

I mean, how hard is this to really grasp? Some of you atheists seem to have an answer for everything, don't you?

You are not realizing that the smallest belief and the greatest belief are the same thing, just of a different magnitude. Having complete and utter faith, to the point where you will kill yourself for your religion is not the truth, it's simply an incredibly strong belief.

You must see that what I know, I know... what I do not know, I do not know. This is the prime position to start seeking.

[Meatros]

Maybe you should read up on Pascal's wager if you still think that what I'm saying still fits that.

I have read up on the wager, including it's original context.

You stated:

You can believe whatever you want. Since atheists think we're wrong, let's play devil's advocate for a second and entertain their idea that we are. Ok, I choose to believe in God and have faith in him 100%. I don't doubt for a second that I'm right, but would I lose anything if I wasn't? There are plenty of people in this world that will refuse to believe no matter what. I think you're looking at it in the wrong way

You are taking one outcome of the dilemma and saying you haven't lost anything - which is not only untrue, but it also demonstrates Pascalian reasoning.

I just pulled it up and it's no longer considered that if you believe in the resurrection of Christ. Pascal's wager is based off of just simply believing.

No, it's not. It's a wager, it's saying that you should be a Christian because you don't lose anything and you have everything to gain. It's saying that you should start by believing and follow the saints.

It's stating that that isn't sufficient since even satan and the demons believe

I mean, how hard is this to really grasp? Some of you atheists seem to think you have an answer for everything, don't you?

Apparently it's hard to grasp since you aren't grasping it.

If you don't practice as a Christian then how could you gain eternal life? Do you think that Pascal was a buddhist or something? He was a Christian. He assumed that one had two choices: Belief in Yahweh or Disbelief in Yahweh. You have to choose one of them. You lose nothing by believing in Yahweh, therefore you should, in case it's right. After you believe in Yahweh, you follow those who believed (ie, Christians).

But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter

[Calhexas]

I know there's a bunch of non believers on here and that's fine. Look, I don't care what other people choose to believe. It's your life and that's fine, but I swear... I've got this dude on fb that's one and every other status it seems like he'll post something just to get a rise out of Christians. He took verses out of context and made some status earlier about how the Bible contradicts itself and then followed up with this gem right here:

"Debates are good, but I'm just pointing out the facts from my point of view, man. The bible states that no man can predict when judgement day will be, only God knows.. But there are scientific facts proven by NASA that the destruction of Earth will result from a meteor a couple hundred years from now. Religions changed so much from the days of the Egyptians to the Christians of today's society. But science has never truly changed, only evolved and it always will."

I'm not sure if this guy is just retarded or what. I think he has a 4 yr degree and works 2 jobs (one of which is at Golden Corral), so maybe

I work with a woman who makes it known she is an atheist any chance she gets. Even going so far as to saying out loud "wtf do I do with this chit" when she received a gift card to a christian gift shop at last year's christmas party during the "dirty santa" period.

That gift was brought by the owner's mother, and it was obvious that the comment made the woman very upset.

She scoffs at any mention of God/Jesus/religion/etc...and makes it known that her family can "go fukk themselves" anytime you bring up yours.

She is the ultimate combative atheist and yet, her arguments aren't even all that sound. She just sounds bitter and immature when she talks.

I'm not religious, but it's so annoying that I've contemplated going to the CEO/HR with this and pretend like her "religious discrimination" is bothering me and is amount to bullying at work. I'm just waiting for her next soapbox moment during a meeting and I'm going to record the entire instance on my voice memo app. Checkmate you stupid sloot.

[MyLastSerenade]

I find it no worse then half of my feed being filled with "I passed my test! It was an act of god!" and ****.

I don't force my opinions on anybody though, but religious people (in my experience) do it all day long

Then Why don't you just unfriend them?

[JonZ]

I don't force my opinions on anybody though, but religious people (in my experience) do it all day long

This.

[XPmpnII]

You are not realizing that the smallest belief and the greatest belief are the same thing, just of a different magnitude. Having complete and utter faith, to the point where you will kill yourself for your religion is not the truth, it's simply an incredibly strong belief.

You must see that what I know, I know... what I do not know, I do not know. This is the prime position to start seeking.

I believe that my faith is the truth. What are you gonna do, come at me and claim Pascal's wager no matter what I say?

"An intellectual belief that God exists is not enough, since judgment is based upon what is in one's heart.5 Pretending to believe or going through the motions of some church service is not going to be looked upon very favorably by God.6 In fact, Jesus said that many would do all those religious things, but still be condemned"

I don't simply have just an intellectual belief

[Penile_Dementia]

She is the ultimate combative atheist and yet, her arguments aren't even all that sound. She just sounds bitter and immature when she talks.

I don't know if she is. If she was that would be a very good thing. Very different connotations arise when one says "ultimate combative muslim" for example.

[lasher]

Well OP I equally can't stand Christians who can't handle atheists trying to rustle their jimmies. Once you get yourself an education on most of the issues they will attempt to rustle you with, it becomes alot harder to rustle you at all.

[XPmpnII]

I have read up on the wager, including it's original context.

You stated:



You are taking one outcome of the dilemma and saying you haven't lost anything - which is not only untrue, but it also demonstrates Pascalian reasoning.



No, it's not. It's a wager, it's saying that you should be a Christian because you don't lose anything and you have everything to gain. It's saying that you should start by believing and follow the saints.



Apparently it's hard to grasp since you aren't grasping it.

If you don't practice as a Christian then how could you gain eternal life? Do you think that Pascal was a buddhist or something? He was a Christian. He assumed that one had two choices: Belief in Yahweh or Disbelief in Yahweh. You have to choose one of them. You lose nothing by believing in Yahweh, therefore you should, in case it's right. After you believe in Yahweh, you follow those who believed (ie, Christians).

"The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation. After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures8 because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith."

Your argument is invalid because there is no pretending on my part when it comes to my beliefs

[basement iron]

It's not Pascal's wager because I don't just believe in God. I have accepted him into my heart and I believe that he died on the cross for my sins. If my beliefs meant laying my life on the line, I would do it without hesitation.

That, by definition, is not Pascal's wager.

"On the surface, Pascal's wager seems like a no-brainer. One should believe because in believing you either lose nothing or gain everything. However, the unstated assumption in the wager is that belief in God guarantees one a place in heaven. With regard to Christianity, the assumption is false. Belief in God, in and of itself, is not sufficient to ensure entry into heaven, since the demons also believe, but are condemned"

100% Pascals Wager.

[XPmpnII]

Well OP I equally can't stand Christians who can't handle atheists trying to rustle their jimmies. Once you get yourself an education on most of the issues they will attempt to rustle you with, it becomes alot harder to rustle you at all.

Are you a Christian?

If so, please aware me so I can become more knowledgeable in regards to my faith and be able to better respond to things

[Harbinger]

I post anti-christian stuff on my ******** all the time. My christian friends and relatives post pro-christian stuff. Why is it okay for them but not for me?

[Meatros]

Well OP I equally can't stand Christians who can't handle atheists trying to rustle their jimmies. Once you get yourself an education on most of the issues they will attempt to rustle you with, it becomes alot harder to rustle you at all.

Oh Snap, the CJR is back! He's no longer a brotheist!

"The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation. After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures8 because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith."

Your argument is invalid because there is no pretending on my part when it comes to my beliefs

That is not *truly* Pascal's wager - as I evidenced by when I, you know, quoted Pascal.

Whatever though, believe what you want - it doesn't hurt anything to do so, you know?

[XPmpnII]

100% Pascals Wager.

Please educate yourself on Pascal's wager

[Penile_Dementia]

Are you a Christian?

If so, please aware me so I can become more knowledgeable in regards to my faith and be able to better respond to things

he is indeed a frothing Christian lunatic

[Meatros]

Please educate yourself on Pascal's wager

Have you read Pensées?

[lasher]

Are you a Christian?

If so, please aware me so I can become more knowledgeable in regards to my faith and be able to better respond to things

Here's the reading list I usually recommend when people ask. These are all books I've read (or am currently reading) and recommend highly.

"Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith" by Douglas Groothuis.

Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash, although it is a bit dated.
Peter S Williams - C.S Lewis vs the New Atheists
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is a good overview of all the basic issues in apologetics.

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections – Michael Brown
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections – Michael Brown

God's Undertaker - John Lennox. This is a refutation of Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". John Lennox is a Cambridge professor of science and mathematics, who has publicly debated Dawkins and Hitchens several times. This book focuses heavily on the harmony between science and Christianity.

Robert Spitzers "New Proofs for the existence of God" This book tackles quantum cosmology, string theory, thoughts on reality, space time asymmetric models for the beginning of the universe, new evidence from physics, etc.

Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation – John Glvoer

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate - John H. Walton

JP morelands Consciousness and the Existence of God is an apologetic argument that focuses on the necessity of a divine mind in explaining human consciousness.

Naturalism Defeated - Alvin Plantinga is a series of essays by plantinga and others showing a fascinating argument on how evolution itself makes a naturalist world view self contradictory.

Richard Swineburg - Is there a God

I also recommend Alving Plantinga's other books

- God and Other Minds
- Faith and Science, where the real conflict lies
- Knowledge of God

Last but not least, the best books I know of that defend the historicity of the Gospels and the resurrection account of Christ and in Church History in general

Richard Bauckham – Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Mike Licona - The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (best by far, well, NT wrights is probably more comprehensive, but at the expense of a few hundred more pages).
NT Wright - The Resurrection of the Son Of God
Gary Habermas - The Risen Jesus and Future_Hope
The Spreading Flame - FF Bruce
History of the New Testament - FF Bruce
The cannon of scripture - FF Bruce
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence – Daniel Wallace

For New Testament study - DA Carsons "Introduction to the New Testament" is fantastic.

Also, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg

Also, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce

For Systematic Theology - Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology"

Itunes also has some fantastic audio lectures in their ITUNES university section. The courses I listened to over the past 2 or so years

You can find these just by doing a search in the itunes store (they are all free). Just do a search for reformed theological seminary.

History of Christianity I & II
Christian Apologetics
Christian Philosophy
Systematic Theology I&II&III

These you can find just by doing a search for Covenant theological seminary

New Testament Survey
Theology of the new testament
Covenant Theology