How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Immanuel Can]

So, you are stating that the Bible is in error, because it uses the word "anyone" and not "ancient Hebrews" in the passage?

No. But before you judge, you've got to ask, "any one of whom?" And that, you can find out from reading the context, the words around the words you're isolating. Before we accuse anyone of being in error, we'd best check carefully to make sure we have interpreted what they're saying correctly, right? And what you find out is that the entire book is addressed to the particular concerns and situation of the ancient Hebrews, not to modern Western Atheists. Hence the title.

Of course, we can isolate a single word and play free association with it, but that won't be the way to get a clear understanding of what the writer is saying, will it?

Mind you, I don't see it's to your advantage to believe yourself included in that particular "anyone." After all, the "privilege" you would get for that is to be lost without hope, wouldn't it? So maybe it's not so bad for you in this case if the context, not your impression of a single word, turns out to be determinative.

[ken]

Are you deluded enough to think or believe that you have the true view of God?

Heavens, no. I'm no wiser than the average person.

So why did you write like you know what the true view of God is?

By the way you are no wiser than ANY person. If you think/believe you are wiser than some, then you again are one of the many deluded ones.

However, no matter how skeptical you might be, you would surely recognize this: that if God spoke concerning his nature, and said something about the "true view," then I would have two choices: 1) believe Him, or 2) refuse to believe Him.

If you do not have a true view of God, then how in hell would you know if God was speaking to you or not?

However, the problem of my own ignorance would presumably not be so great that the Supreme Being could not overcome it, if He should decide to so do. Does that not seem perfectly reasonable -- for I am stating It only as a hypothetical here, for your consideration?

That does NOT seem perfectly reasonable at all, for two reasons;
1. You are so deluded about who God is that you still believe God is a 'he', which when you know who/what God is is an obviously false view.
2. You quote jesus as though his words are direct truth from God, but you can not even recognize that you are the very ignorant and deluded one that jesus was referring to.

God spoke to you, through jesus, and does speak to you directly about God's nature, saying things about the "true view", as you put it, but you continually fail you recognize this. What you are right in, though, is that you do have two choices; 1) either open up and remain open, or 2) continue to believe what you do, and fail to view the truth, on most occasions.

You do not even know what God is yet, so God does not want human beings to believe (in) God, or to not believe (in) God. God just waits patiently until human beings have evolved enough and who are open enough to understand who/what, as some people refer to, IS God.

God supposedly puts jesus on earth to share God's word. Jesus tells you that "there would be many false views of God, and that even many people who deluded themselves that they knew God specially, when in fact they did not", which is a direct quote in relation to you. Jesus is the one you supposedly put all your faith in and believe in, yet you can not recognize that even God can not make a person, who believes that they are right, listen to what is truly obviously right. You hear what jesus said. You repeat what jesus says. But you are NOT listening to what jesus was actually saying.

Here is a handy hint, it is easy to understand God's word by listening to what IS in you, rather than taking another person's word for it. When you are completely open and honest about the wrong that you do, truly seek to change those ways, and admit and take full responsibility for your behaviors, then will recognize, see, and fully understand God's true view. Until then you will remain as ignorant and as deluded as you are right now.

If so, are you in anyway able to enlighten us on what is the true view of God?

My suggestion is that you don't look to me, but to God Incarnate Himself -- to what He has revealed about Himself.

So, what has God supposedly revealed to you that would enlighten others to who/what God supposedly IS?

And, how do you suggest others look to God? You have not provided anything other than, do not look to immanuel can but look to God (whoever/whatever that may be).

I provided far more detail about HOW to actually find, discover, see, and understand who/what God truly IS, then you have here. Why is that do you suppose?

If anyone would know, He would: if you wouldn't listen to Him, then I agree with you that nobody would know.

So are you now admitting that you have one of those many false views and that you are one of the deluded ones?

Either way, I'm not recommending myself.

There is nothing more needed to be added to this.

[Immanuel Can]

There is nothing more needed to be added to this.

That is, perhaps, the only true word you have spoken there.

[Arising_uk]

That is, perhaps, the only true word you have spoken there.

Well, as an atheist I can tell you that ken certainly sounds like he speaks with the true word of your 'God' and you clearly don't. I can live with more like ken.

[ken]

If My point needed qualifying, then you certainly did not qualify it.

What has decisions got to do with believing or disbelieving (in) some thing?

I'm sorry -- I thought I made that clear at the start, with the example of a fire.

The only thing you made clear was how confused and deluded you really are.

It won't matter if you "believe" the fire alarm is a fake, and if you "decide" that you don't have to leave the building. In such cases, you can't not-make a decision, because not-making a decision has results anyway.

If there's a fire, you'll burn. It would be better to make a decision to investigate further, would it not?

Your attempt at an argument fails on so many accounts.
My point IS you do NOT have to believe or disbelieve the fire alarm at all, AND, you CAN still make a decision, without believing. Actually you can wait till you KNOW the truth, of whether there is a fire or not, before you make a decision. Did you notice that to make the decision 'to wait till you KNOW the truth' was done without any believing or disbelieving necessary?
Therefore, decisions can be made without believing (in) or disbelieving (in) any thing.

Now that that is sorted out, trying to relate your fire example back to whether God exists or not does not work in any way.

A stubborn, or stupid, person may decide to wait to find out for sure if there is a fire or not before they leave the building when a fire alarm is ringing. However, you have suggested that if there is a fire, then they will burn (but as we all know the truth is they may or may not burn), anyway, trying to relate that it is better to decide to leave that building just in case there is a fire, to, it is better to decide to believe in God just in case God is true is just ridiculous. I noticed you only used the "If there is a fire" scenario, what about "If there is NO fire" scenario. It may have been far more beneficial to the human being to not have left the building with no fire. That human being might have broken a leg or some thing else for example. In fact that human being may have been working on a project that was beneficial for ALL of humanity, which could have failed if they left the building when they did not need to. I could have also produced countless other different scenarios but none of them are necessary in trying to disprove your point. Your point that it is better for human beings to believe (in) God is just straight out wrong.

Deciding to wait for the truth, and thus finding, discovering and knowing the truth BEFORE deciding whether to believe or disbelieve (in) any thing or not IS far better than believing that you have to believe or disbelieve (in) some thing BEFORE you can make a decision. Holding and maintaining beliefs helps to cause the actual delusions that jesus was referring to.

I found that finding truth before believing (in) any thing was far more beneficial. One of the greatest truths I found was that I do NOT have to believe or disbelieve (in) any thing to make the actual correct and right decisions in Life.

Likewise, if you decide not to "believe" in God, because you lack evidence, then there are always two ways to go: 1) willful disbelief, and 2) skeptical further investigation, but without willful disbelief.

Or, the third way, and that is to just remain open always. Plain and simple really. I can and do choose to neither believe or disbelieve (in) any thing, full stop.

But like the fire, if God's there, then you'll need to know. So I'm suggesting #2. Sitting still in unbelief is just a bad option.

Are you sure suggesting to other human beings to make 2) skeptical further investigation, but without willful disbelief, when they are in a building when the fire alarm starts ringing? I hope you do not instruct others to do that. I would suggest deciding to leave the building firstly and foremost, and then by natural inquisitiveness they will learn, discover, see and understand if there was a fire or not.

I suggest the same with discovering if God exists or not also. That is, go about making decisions whilst being completely and truly open, thus neither believing or disbelieving (in) any thing, and then that will lead you closer to discovering the real truth. Because only when you are fully open, fully honest, and fully wanting to change, for the better, then God can reveal It's true and real Self to you.

You hear examples in relation to God's "truth", like the fire example, which you want to believe wholeheartedly work, and/or you try to make up examples to fit in with your belief about God, but they just do not work. Your arguments fail dismally.

Did some adult human beings actually believe that they could not make decisions without believing or disbelieving (in) some things?

Yes. Empirical ones did. Empiricism (science, for instance) depends on experiences of phenomena that are totally mediated to us by senses. And we all have to decide whether or not to believe in the deliverances of empirical "fact" we receive by those mediated means.

Are you so blinded and deluded by your own beliefs that you can not see and understand what I am writing?

Listen to this, human beings DO NOT have to decide whether or not to believe (in) any thing. Human beings can make decisions without necessarily believing or disbelieving (in) any thing.

If you disagree with this, then that is fine. Just provide an argument or example to show how and why it is wrong. Your fire example/argument did not work at all, so you will have to choose another one. Once you do that, then we call take a look at it. Until then that truth stands.

A human being and human beings on a whole do NOT have to believe (in) any thing to make a decision. If human beings choose to believe (in) some thing then that is their choice, which is very different from the fact that they do NOT have to believe (in) some thing in order to make a choice. Please tell Me if you can see the difference and that you understand what I am saying or not.

If we're dreaming or hallucinating, those deliverances are deceptive; if we're awake and functioning well, we assume (but never know absolutely, of course) that we are receiving trustworthy information through our senses. But again, we have to believe -- we just don't know for certain. And yet that's a perfectly normal way to function, isn't it?

The simple answer is, "No".

Do some human beings actually believe that they have to believe (in) some thing before they can make a decision?

As above, yes. Everybody's like that.

I am not like that at all. So, who/what does that make Me?

(For the more open of the ones listening to what I have actually been saying, then they will have already begun to see and understand who and what 'I' am already).

By the way the only thing you have shown and proven above is how much holding and maintain beliefs confuses, deludes, and closes you off from thee Truth.

[Seleucus]

Your translation of Hebrews 10:26-27 is corrupt.

The passage just says, if you keep smoking cigarettes knowing full well the dangers of tobacco products, then you're a chump and can pretty much only expect to get a smoking related illness and all the suffering and anguish that's coming with that.

There are two kinds of reading. Critical reading which defends the ego. And reading for understanding which contains a willingness to adopt new schema.

Since for many people there is a tendency for ego to play its defensive role, the critical type of reading often prevails.

Instead, assume that the writers of a text know what they are talking about and try to figure out what that might be.

I would suggest two frames that might aid you. The one is to see Jesus as a teacher of Eastern spirituality as in Zen, Buddhism or a Course in Miracles. Another is to see Christianity as an expression of a deeper underlying Indo-European spirituality.

[ken]

But, Phil X, the specific quote is not limited to ancient Jews, and specifically references "anyone."

"If anyone sins deliberately by rejecting the Savior after knowing the truth of forgiveness, this sin is not covered by Christ's death; there is no way to get rid of it. There will be nothing to look forward to but the terrible punishment of God's awful anger, which will consume all his enemies." (Hebrews, 10:26-27).

It obviously would apply to ancient Jews, but also applies to any modern-day atheist, as well as modern-day Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc. At least for people who are made aware of Jesus and reject him, which I have, this passage literally means that even if I accepted Jesus, right now, I am still headed for hell. So, are you saying that this Biblical passage is in error, and should be rewritten so that the word "anyone" is replaced with "ancient Hebrews"?

There is no use rewriting any book. What is written is written. What needs to be done instead is read, what is written, in the context it is written. The only way to do that correctly and successfully is to speak directly with the person(s) who wrote the words. Obviously this can not be done on most occasions. Have you ever noticed that whenever their is contention about another person's written word it is usually always because of differing people reading it, and their different interpretation of that what is written? Unfortunately and usually the author is not able to be questioned, which causes the interpreter confusingly to believe more so that they themselves are right and correct.

If I recall correctly I have already asked you questions about that specific passage you quote here, but you unfortunately did not answer the questions. But I will try again anyway;

Who does 'Saviour' refer to exactly?
If it is jesus, then how could you, or any one else actually reject jesus?
Do you accept that a human being lived roughly 2000 years ago? If so, then what are you actually rejecting? And, is that (what you are rejecting) really actually jesus?
What does 'sins' mean, here in this context?
It states that, "If anyone sins deliberately by rejecting the Savior AFTER knowing the truth of forgiveness, ..." Do you know the truth of forgiveness, and what the truth of forgiveness actually IS? Let alone actually knowing for sure 100% of what the rest actually means and in what context it was actually written?

I could find many more questions to ask you just for the first sentence to find out if your interpretation of it is actually true, right, and correct, let alone for the rest of the passage.

Written passages are not necessarily in error just because of one person's interpretation of it is wrong. Without full knowledge of what context a passage was written and what was truly meant then finding error or not is not truly possible. On the other hand, however, interpretations of passages written can be completely and utterly in error.

[ken]

That is, perhaps, the only true word you have spoken there.

Well, as an atheist I can tell you that ken certainly sounds like he speaks with the true word of your 'God' and you clearly don't. I can live with more like ken.

Thanks for that arising_uk. That is encouraging, and that is what i certainly need when trying to discuss any thing with immanuel can. The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs is very discouraging. i tend to want to give up just trying to have a discussion with people who are so closed off by their beliefs. The amusing part of all of this is that there is actually a far bit of deep-seeded truth buried deep behind what immanuel can says, but this goes for all people anyway, but immanuel can is so deeply blinded and deluded by those well kept beliefs that immanuel can is actually prevented from seeing the truth. Immanuel can's "God" is so far from the real truth of what God IS it is actually very funny.

[Seleucus]

Thanks for that arising_uk. That is encouraging, and that is what i certainly need when trying to discuss any thing with immanuel can.

Okay.

The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs

Projection/interpretation.

is very discouraging.

Okay.

i tend to want to give up just trying to have a discussion with people who are

Okay.

so closed off by their beliefs.

Projection/interpretation.

The amusing part of all of this is that there is

Okay.

actually a far bit of deep-seeded truth buried deep behind what immanuel can says, but this goes for all people anyway, but immanuel can is so deeply blinded and deluded by those well kept beliefs that immanuel can is actually prevented from seeing the truth. Immanuel can's "God" is so far from the real truth of what God IS it

Projection/interpretation.

is actually very funny.

Okay.

[ken]

Thanks for that arising_uk. That is encouraging, and that is what i certainly need when trying to discuss any thing with immanuel can.

Okay.

The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs

Projection/interpretation.

is very discouraging.

Okay.

i tend to want to give up just trying to have a discussion with people who are

Okay.

so closed off by their beliefs.

Projection/interpretation.

The amusing part of all of this is that there is

Okay.

actually a far bit of deep-seeded truth buried deep behind what immanuel can says, but this goes for all people anyway, but immanuel can is so deeply blinded and deluded by those well kept beliefs that immanuel can is actually prevented from seeing the truth. Immanuel can's "God" is so far from the real truth of what God IS it

Projection/interpretation.

is actually very funny.

Okay.

If you are suggesting that I have a belief, then what do you allege that belief to be?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then what is it that you are trying to suggest here?

[Dontaskme]

The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can

He's a coward, he would never act like that in realtime physical world standing face to face with other people else he would be beaten to a pulp.

It's all just a pompous show because he loves the sounds of his own voice..and is particularly partial to it's echo ie: responses he gets.

Also, I've noticed when he is faced with the really hard questions about reality..he just ignores them. He has certainly adopted a mechanism of selected hearing.


No offence IC..but you really do like to put others down in a class lower than yourself.

[Seleucus]

Thanks for that arising_uk. That is encouraging, and that is what i certainly need when trying to discuss any thing with immanuel can.

Okay.

The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs

Projection/interpretation.

is very discouraging.

Okay.

i tend to want to give up just trying to have a discussion with people who are

Okay.

so closed off by their beliefs.

Projection/interpretation.

The amusing part of all of this is that there is

Okay.

actually a far bit of deep-seeded truth buried deep behind what immanuel can says, but this goes for all people anyway, but immanuel can is so deeply blinded and deluded by those well kept beliefs that immanuel can is actually prevented from seeing the truth. Immanuel can's "God" is so far from the real truth of what God IS it

Projection/interpretation.

is actually very funny.

Okay.

If you are suggesting that I have a belief, then what do you allege that belief to be?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then what is it that you are trying to suggest here?

I'm wanting to suggest that there are two different kinds of statements, actually three.

The first kind is objective description, it includes external facts and also internal phenomenological description. These are generally okay. EG: "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely."

A second kind of statement is interpretive, this includes evaluations and judgement. It isn't objective, it's projection. EG: "I feel like you don't love me. You are a heartless bastard." These kinds of statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding. They are essentially pathological. They wouldn't have a place in court testimony or a peer reviewed journal.

A third kind of statement is a request or order, when we ask others to do something. EG: "Will you come by next Saturday? Can we play tennis?" There are also requests for information. EG: "How do you feel about the idea of coming to see me next Saturday? Were you out of town for the past three weeks?" These are all usually okay.

[Dontaskme]

Just who the heck is going to play the role of the final judge, jury and arbitrator of what's false and what isn't?

Three letters will do it...

Yeah, it's called Y.O.U.

Y the unknown Father appearing as and through U the known Mother O eternally intertwined as ONE without beginning nor end.

I don't know of any other you do you?

There is a boundless freedom here within which a choiceless choice appears..and comes to pass as intended, Intention is the rider of the free will.

[Dontaskme]

Just who the heck is going to play the role of the final judge, jury and arbitrator of what's false and what isn't?

Three letters will do it...

Yeah, it's called Y.O.U.

Y the unknown Father appearing as and through U the known Mother O eternally intertwined as ONE without beginning nor end.

I don't know of any other you do you?

There is a boundless freedom here within which a choiceless choice appears..and comes to pass as intended, Intention is the rider of the free will.

For IC


Here at least
we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

Basically what the phrase means that yes, the fallen angels are in the worst possible place imaginable (Hell) but they are beholden to nobody but themselves. Heaven (i.e God) no longer dictates their actions--they are masters of their fate, despite being confined to Hell.

.

Be your own internet IC...just like Jesus taught

The word of God has no copyright.

Nature does not make copies.

[Dontaskme]

So why rule out the postulate that IF God wanted to, He could make Himself known?

God is already known. That which is known cannot know.

In other words..no one knows God.

God doesn't hold a desire to make himself known. He is the knowing.

There is no ''other'' to know knowing directly, knowing is only ever immediate.