I’ve posted on this before.
It’s Jesus or nothing.
It’s faith or nothing.
A lot of people find fault with that but really, we should quit complaining. The fact that there is ANY way to repair the damage we’ve done to our relationship with our Creator is amazing enough. The fact that ALL we have to do is accept what Jesus did is incredible. Yet, as simple as it is, it’s too difficult for atheists. They’ll whine about it.
They’ll ridicule it.
They say how unfair it is.
In fact, if you challenge their faith-system, atheists will even tell you that you aren’t a real Christian. However, if you suggest to an atheist that s/he consider asking for forgiveness, that person will, you know, "I don’t believe in any of that stuff."
Of course faith in what Jesus has done is the only logical way to attain peace with God. Just as bad Karma reproduces faster than good Karma and sets us up on the wheel of rebirth and suffering (according to one Hindu mathematician for 3.6 million reincarnations before attaining release), so too do our wrong thoughts and deeds accrue faster than our good thoughts and deeds. Reality is,
. If there is any OTHER way than faith in Jesus, we’re done for.
. If there are some sort of scales weighing out our good and bad deeds, we done for.
For most of us, we’ve accumulated decades of harm before we even find out that we’re going to be held accountable for our actions.
Thank God and His Son Jesus that our actions, both good and bad do not even enter into the equation regarding salvation.
Faith in the work of Jesus, from top to bottom.
Faith in the work of Jesus , from first to last.
There is nothing that we can do or not do to merit salvation. Our bad actions will not cancel out our faith and our good actions will not add a single point to our faith. Our salvation is by God’s grace and that alone. All you have to do is accept it. It requires too much honesty and humility for an atheist, but it might not be too hard for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
No doubt you will probably attempt to belittle me in your response to this, but i do not understand why you constantly tar all atheists with the same brush. We all have one thing in common - we don't believe in gods. Yet you continually speak as if we are all the same.
To add to this, you are always giving it 'Atheists will do this...', 'Atheists will say that...'
Why can you not accept that there is no evidence for god's existence? By evidence, i mean evidence as we accept it for everything else on the planet. Why can his existence not be proved in any way?
Makarios, if i saw clear-cut evidence that he existed, and i think i speak for any rational atheist when i say this, then i would repent and worship.
The thing is though, that's never going to happen is it? The bottom line is faith. No matter how often science makes a mockery of certain stories in the bible (e.g. the great flood) people like you just bash on as if it doesn't matter. Tell you what Mak, if i were god, who is supposed to be the pinnacle of intellect, i'd make it damn clear to everyone on earth that one: i exist irrefutably, and two: i am the only god that exists. Yet he chooses not to do this.
Let's just assume for a moment that hypothetically speaking there is a god. I actually feel much better having to go up there and explain myself for not believing in him, given the lack of evidence etc. than having to go up there and explain that despite that same lack of evidence, you spent your life worshipping the wrong god. What do you think?
'Sup Rabby
I like your style of commenting. And you actually brought up something I've never heard before.
You said about justifying ourselves before God "....you spent your life worshiping the wrong God"
Well, as interesting as that thought is, I'd like to respond this way: There is but one God, he is a great God, he is the God of the Christian Bible, I love that God, he is all powerful, I want to serve and worship that God. If I get to heaven and that's not my God, then screw him and I'll join you Atheists in hell.
Peace out, feeno
Those are some pretty decent questions Rab. I'm busy this morning, but I will get back to you.
Well that is interesting feeno, but with all due respect that is plain crazy.
If i end up before him when i die, i would argue my case as to why i did not believe him, if he is the super-intelligent being he is supposed to be, then surely he would realise why his fallible creation came to such conclusions - i know i would.
All god needs to do if he exists is reveal it unambiguously and irrefutably.
I have 100% confidence that this will never happen though.
'There is but one God, he is a great God, he is the God of the Christian Bible, I love that God, he is all powerful, I want to serve and worship that God.'
You don't know that, feeno. You just whole-heartedly believe that is the case. 1 Billion muslims would equally make the above statement with the approproate corresponding amendments.
In addition feeno, you might not join the atheists in hell, because one: they would no longer be atheists and two: the whole point i was trying to make is that the current atheists would have a better chance of gaining entry to heaven, explaining that there was no unambiguous, irrefutable evidence of his existence. Rather than those who worshipped an entirely different god, without said evidence.
All atheists i know are open-minded. If some evidence were to come along that supports the existcne of god, unambiguously and irrefutably, we'd all convert.
Rap
"We all have one thing in common - we don't believe in gods.”
What we believe in one area of life effects other areas. Common beliefs have common effects. I usually write about those things that I see that atheists have in common. Especially the most absurd aspects, like, “Well, I’m a good person.” Because it’s much easier to say, “Atheists do . . .” I’ll probably continue. My advice? If it doesn’t apply to you, ignore it.
“Why can you not accept that there is no evidence for god's existence?”
A more accurate statement would be, “Why can't you accept that I’VE never seen any evidence that I’d consider an indication of God’s existence.”
“then i would repent and worship.”
Jesus said that some day you will get exactly that kind of evidence. At that time, “Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Of course at that time Your fate will already be sealed.
“i'd make it damn clear to everyone on earth . . .”
Many of us already believe that He’s done exactly that. Well, not irrefutably but certainly beyond reasonable doubt. We believe very strongly that we have made this decision based on evidence. Rap, I think that you have every reason to be very concerned that you haven’t been made aware of God’s presence. If you've got a Bible, check out Romans chapter 9 verses 22 - 24. Those verses are saying that not everyone is going to get that evidence. On the other hand, God says that “If you seek Me with all your heart, I will be found by you.” And, “Anyone who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved.”
In order to have a moral universe, and a universe with real love we have to be able to choose. We have to be able to choose to love, or to not love. We have to be able to choose to do what’s right or to not do what’s right. AND we have to be able to choose to serve God -who IS Love - or to rebel against the very concept of God.
God will not do anything that removes that choice from you.
Giving you something that YOU would call clear cut evidence WOULD remove that choice.
“God has provided just enough evidence so that those who are looking for Him will find Him and those who want to reject Him will not be able to find Him accidentally." Plato
“. . . explain myself for not believing in him, given the lack of evidence etc.”
That's a really bad idea. The lack of evidence is our fault. If we are serious about knowing God, about finding God, about establishing a healed relationship with God (right now your relationship is one of being His enemy) He, God, will begin to show Himself to us. We come to Him on faith or we don't come at all. The more we, on faith, allow Him into our lives, the more He makes us aware of His presence, of His reality.
"If some evidence were to come along that supports the existcne of god, unambiguously and irrefutably, we'd all convert."
No, you wouldn't. Jesus said, "Even when I rise from the dead, there will be some who will not believe." If Jesus were to suddenly appear in front of you in a way that made you believe that it was the real deal, you would discount that experience. You know why? Because it would be a miracle and atheists don't believe in miracles.
Mak,
I really like you. That last comment was beautiful. Also I hope you don't mind but I think I'll be using that quote from Plato.
Good lookin' out, (I know your getting up there in years, that means thanks. feeno
Rabby,
I see your point and your probably right. Have a nice week-end, feeno
"I really like you."
Fenno - honey - I'm married. Although I suppose one little kiss wouldn't hurt.
Makarios your last comment just highlights how absurd your comments could be.
Withoout going over the whole lot, i can asure that if jesus ever reappeared and he proved it so irrefutably, i would believe. I wouldn't stubbornly 'disbelieve' purely on principle.
Another great flaw is you refer to the bible. I could give u multiple versus in the bible that exemplify why i don't believe any of it. So many religious people share this phenomenom where they pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore of their scriptures. It's either all right, or all wrong.
Rab - I agree that the Bible is all correct but HOW it's correct needs to be taken into account. I mean, when Jesus says that He is the Way, that doesn't mean that He's a road or that He has a door latch under His shirt.
When God talks about knowing us before the universe even existed, or when He says that we will be killed by "not a hair on your head will be harmed," there is obviously many types and forms of speech that are used and there is obviously a lot that we won't understand this side of eternity.
"It's either all right, or all wrong."
That is obviously NOT the case, but I don't feel like arguing about it here.
No, please do, the infallible word of god is either all right, or all wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Did the story of Noah's Ark occur as described in the bible, yes or no.
The Bible uses a number of figures of speech, just as you and I and everyone else. Poetry, history, allegory, metaphor hyperbole and all the rest are used to describe God’s plan of restoration and reconciliation. People used to think that the creation story was literal and true as told. Many still do. This is what I mean by it isn’t either or. I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is true.
Science has shown us two things. 1) The singularity did not and indeed could not come about by natural means.
2) The creation account as told in the Bible is not likely literal in nature.
Does that mean that God was not involved? Not at all. Does that mean that Moses wrote about it in a manner that was untrue? Not at all. We simply don’t know what it means - yet. It’s the same with any number of events. We do know this, both science and archaeology have proven over and over and over historical events recorded in the Bible. Over and over sceptics have had to retreat on events they said never happened or places they said never existed.
Am I saying that the Bible is without error? In what it writes? Perhaps. In what it teaches? No.
This ridged and repetitive, persistent and pervasive, black and white thinking that you display, and that is so typical of atheists sets a person up for grave errors in many, many areas of life, not just in understanding the Bible.
Its not black and white thinking as such mak, its logical thinking.
Your just giving another cop out. There is no other way to interpret bible stories like Noah's Ark any other way other than literally. These are supposed to be the historical record of what actually happened. God really did (apparently...) make everything and then rest within 7 days.
Don't give me the famous cop-outs such as 7 'god' days, or after each day he paused for a few billion years - why can't you just concede the stories are nonsense?
People used to think the sotry was true until science proved it was FALSE - there is no confusion regarding this matter. The account of the universes creation gien in the bible is nonsense.
"Science has shown us two things. 1) The singularity did not and indeed could not come about by natural means."
NO. IT. HASN'T.
In your opinion, you have decided this. The scientific world does not widely recognise that singularity could not come about by natural means.
We do not understand fully what happened before the big bang, and in case you aren't aware, singularity is just one theory regarding pre-big bang universe.
“singularity is just one theory regarding pre-big bang universe.”
And it’s the only one that fits the evidence. None, NONE of the rest are workable.
Son of God, son of David, or son of Man? Jesus is identified as “son of David” fourteen times in the New Testament, starting with the very first verse (Matthew 1:1). The Gospel of Luke documents forty-one generations between Jesus and David, while Matthew lists twenty-six. Jesus, a distant descendant, can only wear the “son of David” title metaphorically. But how then should we understand the title, “son of God?”
The “Trilemma,” a common proposal of Christian missionaries, states that “Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God, as he claimed to be.” For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Jesus was neither a lunatic nor a liar. Let’s also agree he was precisely what he claimed to be. But what, exactly, was that? Jesus called himself “Son of Man” frequently, consistently, perhaps even emphatically, but where did he call himself “Son of God?”
Read the complete article at:
Son of God, son of David, or son of Man? Jesus is identified as “son of David” fourteen times in the New Testament, starting with the very first verse (Matthew 1:1). The Gospel of Luke documents forty-one generations between Jesus and David, while Matthew lists twenty-six. Jesus, a distant descendant, can only wear the “son of David” title metaphorically. But how then should we understand the title, “son of God?”
The “Trilemma,” a common proposal of Christian missionaries, states that “Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God, as he claimed to be.” For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Jesus was neither a lunatic nor a liar. Let’s also agree he was precisely what he claimed to be. But what, exactly, was that? Jesus called himself “Son of Man” frequently, consistently, perhaps even emphatically, but where did he call himself “Son of God?”
Read the complete article at:
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/547/
Ok, lets just say i accept that. It doesn't mean that science has shown us that it couldn't possibly be from natural means. Again - we don't know what happened before it and we can't test so.
Also, the stories in the bible i refer to are still hogwash, regardless of the 'beginning' debate.
The "Son of Man" is a Messianic title from the Old Testament.
Rab - tell me about your name. What does that mean - Rabhimself?
"It doesn't mean that science has shown us that it couldn't possibly be from natural means."
And atheist driven science won't even explore that avenue because for those devoted to scientism nature is all that exists.
Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.
Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias -“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”
Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.
==========
"Again - we don't know what happened before it and we can't test so."
Yes, but rignt NOW the evidence says that it wasn't natural because there is no natural means that we know of that would allow for such a thing. That's why all the emphasis is on multi verses and oscillating universes etc. Anything that might have pre existed our own universe. As of now, none of them are workable because they all require a Big Bang Singularity type of beginning at some point in the definitive past.
The cause might even turn out to BE natural. I just want to find an atheist who is willing to only go as far as the evidence allows. That's all that I want.
You give me confidence that such an individual exists.
Makarios, i have already written that somewhere on this blog that i will not rule out the possibility of a grand creator. You will find that many atheists will concur on this matter.
Here's the problems though (i have also mentioned thse previously). If something created our universe, it does not make them god. Furthermore, it does not make them the christian god. I synthesise molecules in the lab - that does not make me god.
The other problem i have already mentioned, is the reason why i also do not believe that a creator is the answer - complexity. By introducing a creator, you complicate everything more than it already is. You argue that 'something can't come from nothing', yet you cop-out on the supernatural (i.e. magic) basis when then same principle is applied to your creator.
I suppose i can finish up, specifically rebutting that this creator (if he exists) is certainly not the christian god. How could something so clever and powerful be so damn stupid. I have read enough of the bible to reealise what a primitive man your god is. And that, is exactly what created the bible. Primitive men in a scienceless world who fabricated the most fantastic nonsense to account for the world around them.
Oh, and im not impressed by your quotes. Most scientists are atheists (not all - most). I know that Stephen Hawking said that, but i also know he rejects the idea of a god - i know he's an atheist.
Post a Comment