How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Lacewing]

You asked a question, Lacewing, why don't you select the part you do understand and comment. What is the point of asking a question if you have no intention of accepting the answer? (That is why we must begin from good-faith).

I heard you. I think your "answers" are convoluted and dull... and laced with your usual insulting projections. Why should I dig through that any more with you? I'm just not that interested in your pond. I thought a few questions might bring to light the limits of your spiritual perspective... and it did... just not in the way I expected. So... carry on!!

[Lacewing]

Doc, until you start answering and stop ignoring the questions I've asked you, I won't be answering yours.

Promise?

Well then why do you keep making your little comments to me??? I respond only to see you run off and hide, giving no response at all. Seems cowardly and lame. What is your agenda? Are you just wanting to do drive-by attacks?

[thedoc]

Doc, until you start answering and stop ignoring the questions I've asked you, I won't be answering yours.

Promise?

Well then why do you keep making your little comments to me??? I respond only to see you run off and hide, giving no response at all. Seems cowardly and lame. What is your agenda? Are you just wanting to do drive-by attacks?

When you post nothing, I tend to reply-in-kind. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

BTW, what does that have to do with the thread title?

[Lacewing]

When you post nothing, I tend to reply-in-kind. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Oh right... how intelligent and dignified of you. You're full of crap AND you're a big weenie!

[thedoc]

When you post nothing, I tend to reply-in-kind. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Oh right... how intelligent and dignified of you. You're full of crap AND you're a big weenie!

Thankyou, at least I'm good at something.

[thedoc]

BTW, does my setting a good example produce the feelings in you to find a church home?

[Arising_uk]

Standard American definition, look it up, if you dare.

Can't see anything there that says saying someone is irrational about a belief means you are not saying they are irrational? Not that it makes much difference as IC's claim is false given that one would first have to prove there is only one 'God' and upon the evidence, ie current beliefs past and present, there appear to be many so not believing in any specific one would appear to be a reasonable position. At least until one of you gidbotherers manges to find more concrete evidence for your assertions.

[ken]

But if people are interested in what IS really true, then there is no thing as 'christian' and 'atheist'. There is, however, people with labels and the label of a thing does not make that thing the label.

The idea of an individual agent is of course right out of Christian morality,

Besides the fact that "christian morality" is just another label, given to a thing, which that thing would have and already has had great difficulty in being accurately defined, the idea of there being an individual agent comes out of the way human beings look at truth and reality, not out of anything else.

so there's nothing wrong with drawing a boarder around a group like Christians, as opposed to an equally arbitrary line around a so-called "individual".

There is something very wrong with trying to draw a boarder around a group like 'christians', because christians is a word that has not yet been successfully defined, nor even closely greed upon. Whereas, the word 'individual' can very easily be defined and agreed upon.

If you disagree with this, then provide some examples so that we can look at, and discuss, them.

Meanwhile I also totally dig what you mean about not labeling and just abiding in the silence of pure is-ness.

Depending on how you define 'totally dig', and thus what you actually meant by saying that, there could actually be a huge amount of contradiction in your sentence here because although you also 'totally dig' what I meant about not labeling and just abiding in the silence of pure-IS-ness, in your preceding sentence you were actually labeling, and not being silent at all, but actually you were talking about there being nothing wrong with trying to place people into different groups and labeling them as such. You were actually trying to justify labeling as being the absolute right thing to do.

[Londoner]

There is something very wrong with trying to draw a boarder around a group like 'christians', because christians is a word that has not yet been successfully defined, nor even closely greed upon. Whereas, the word 'individual' can very easily be defined and agreed upon.

It could be defined, but it could not be applied. If we were to say anything about any individual we would have to use words that put them into a group.

[ken]

There is something very wrong with trying to draw a boarder around a group like 'christians', because christians is a word that has not yet been successfully defined, nor even closely greed upon. Whereas, the word 'individual' can very easily be defined and agreed upon.

It could be defined, but it could not be applied. If we were to say anything about any individual we would have to use words that put them into a group.

What is the "it" in "It could be defined, ..."?

If "it" is 'individual', then what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group?

Part of the definition of 'individual' would include it's separateness from another thing, thus there would be an implied 'group'.

I never suggested anywhere that things can not be put into groups. Why did you say, "If we were to say anything about any individual we would have to use words that put them into a group"?

The actual reason for 'words' is to categorize and put things into groups. This is how human beings try to make sense of the "world". Human beings compartmentalize and label things, in order to make sense. What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things, they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully, unless of course a succesful example of this can be given.

[Londoner]

What is the "it" in "It could be defined, ..."?

If "it" is 'individual', then what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group? ...Part of the definition of 'individual' would include it's separateness from another thing, thus there would be an implied 'group'.

Nothing 'wrong', but if we put something into a group then it would no longer fit the definition of 'individual'. As you say, if we defined 'individual' as 'not a member of a group' but then named any specific group, then we would not be treating them as an individual, but as a member of a defined group. I think 'individual' as a word is empty of reference, like 'something' or 'somewhere'. As soon as we apply it to any actual thing it loses its original meaning.

I agree we can also use the word 'individual' to mean 'a unit'. But then we must have already defined the group. Remember, the quote I was responding to was:

There is something very wrong with trying to draw a boarder around a group like 'christians', because christians is a word that has not yet been successfully defined, nor even closely greed upon. Whereas, the word 'individual' can very easily be defined and agreed upon.

So I'm saying that I would not agree because we are not comparing like with like. Christians are a group (however loosely defined), we might talk about 'individual Christians' but not 'individual individuals'. I am only responding to that particular paragraph, not taking sides about religion.

I never suggested anywhere that things can not be put into groups. Why did you say, "If we were to say anything about any individual we would have to use words that put them into a group"?

For the reason I give above. If we were to say of an individual 'they are a man' then we must put them into the group of men and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to simply point at them, but even then both parties would have to understand exactly what is being pointed to (a person, a part of the person, a direction...)

What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things, they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully, unless of course a succesful example of this can be given.

What would count as 'success'? If somebody identifies themselves as a Christian it will always be in some context, for some purpose. As long it meets that purpose I would say it is good enough. If it doesn't, we can always ask for clarification.

[Science Fan]

IC: I gave you a specific passage where in the Bible it is stated that theists should not marry atheists, because atheists are morally evil. An unbeliever is an atheist. You don't score points for your side by denying the express content of your Bible, which most definitely does demonize atheists, by claiming the word atheist did not exist back then. The word asshole also may not have existed back then, but it doesn't mean the people who wrote the Bible weren't assholes.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: I gave you a specific passage where in the Bible it is stated that theists should not marry atheists,...

No, it says "unbelievers." Hindus are not Atheists. Mormons are not Atheists. Polytheists are not Atheists...but all qualify as "unbelievers." So you've just got it wrong.

Meanwhile, there was no ideology known as "Atheism" until the 16th Century. And if you looked it up, you'd know. Why you don't look it up, I don't know.

Here: I'll make it so easy you can't miss it. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

I wonder what your stake is in vexing yourself over this particular issue. Did someone tell you that as an Atheist you couldn't marry a Theist?

[thedoc]

An unbeliever is an atheist.

An Atheist is certainly an unbeliever, but an unbeliever is not necessarily an Atheist. As used in the Bible an unbeliever was anyone who did not follow the Jewish religion as opposed to just someone who did not believe in God. An unbeliever, as used in the Bible, includes a lot more people than just Atheists. Also the Bible does not say that an unbeliever is always a bad person, but that a person without belief might draw a believer away from the faith, that is hardly "demonizing' an unbeliever.

[Arising_uk]

...Meanwhile, there was no ideology known as "Atheism" until the 16th Century. And if you looked it up, you'd know. Why you don't look it up, I don't know.

Here: I'll make it so easy you can't miss it. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

There's been no atheist ideology since the 16th century either as it's not an ideology it's just the position of not having a belief in your 'God' or 'God's'. An idea that has been around since the Greek's hence we got the derivative word from them and has probably been the case since the first day someone thought up the idea of 'God's'.