I can already hear the comments. Why are you an atheist coming to our Christian chat forum? Or this is inappropriate please leave. I'm here because it is important that atheists and believers talk to and engage with one another. To understand eachother. This is just as much for me as it is for you all. I want to understand your position. Your opinions and feelings. I also think it's important that you all understand how atheists think and feel. There is far too much of a disconnect between us that only breaks down for aruments or fights. We need to have more talking. More listening. More friendly dialogue. This is absolutely appropriate and necessary in my opinion. And if you don't think so and you don't care to take part then by all means don't engage with me. If anyone does happen to want to debate (as some people enjoy doing) I'm more that happy to ablidge. I will begin by asking if anyone has any questions for me. About me my beliefs or atheism in general? Thank you
A friendly chat with an unbeliever
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think so. It's the story of jesus' s life with the "message" being how to be "saved" through Christ. Also his teaching I would say are considered mini messages with the overarching theme being salvation. I should clarify that I have read the bible in full and have researched this kind of stuff extensively so at the very least I should be familiar with what you bring up.
S
Alright, you can bring up anything you want to say about it. But here is a simple message of what the gospel is...
The one and only true God, who is holy and righteous, made man in His image.
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 6:3; Psalm 119:137; Genesis 1:26).
Man disobeyed God, and as a result, man became both mortal and separated from God.
(Genesis 2:17; Isaiah 59:2).
His sinful nature and death was passed down to all of his descendants.
(Romans 3:10-12, 5:12).
All men also have sinned against God and cut themselves off from Him and fallen short of His glory.
(Romans 3:10-12, 23; 1 John 1:10).
The final punishment for the sinner is eternal separation from God and condemnation of hell.
(2 Thess. 1:9-10; Revelation 20:15).
God, in His great love, sent His Son Jesus Christ, as a King and Savior, to save us and restore us back to God.
(Matthew 1:21, 2:2; 1 John 4:9-10; Romans 5:10; John 3:16-17).
He was born of a virgin. He was both divine and human. Who lived a perfect obedient life to God.
(Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14; 1 Peter 2:21-22; Hebrews 4:15).
He bore God's wrath and perfect justice against us while on the cross, though He did nothing to deserve it.
(Colossians 2:14; Romans 5:9; Romans 8:1).
After three days in the grave, He resurrected and conquered both death and evil.
(Luke 24:7; Genesis 3:15; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 1:18).
Anyone who trusts in Him and what He has done has eternal life, and has been both justified and forgiven by God.
(John 3:16, 36, 6:47; Romans 3:28, 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9, 4:32; Galatians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 5:18).
Why does God judge the sinner?
Because God is righteous and just, and must punish sin.
What is sin?
Disobedience to God's holy law and commandments.
Why did Jesus die for our freedom if He didn't deserve it?
He voluntarily did it to save us and restore us back to God.
The one and only true God, who is holy and righteous, made man in His image.
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 6:3; Psalm 119:137; Genesis 1:26).
Man disobeyed God, and as a result, man became both mortal and separated from God.
(Genesis 2:17; Isaiah 59:2).
His sinful nature and death was passed down to all of his descendants.
(Romans 3:10-12, 5:12).
All men also have sinned against God and cut themselves off from Him and fallen short of His glory.
(Romans 3:10-12, 23; 1 John 1:10).
The final punishment for the sinner is eternal separation from God and condemnation of hell.
(2 Thess. 1:9-10; Revelation 20:15).
God, in His great love, sent His Son Jesus Christ, as a King and Savior, to save us and restore us back to God.
(Matthew 1:21, 2:2; 1 John 4:9-10; Romans 5:10; John 3:16-17).
He was born of a virgin. He was both divine and human. Who lived a perfect obedient life to God.
(Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14; 1 Peter 2:21-22; Hebrews 4:15).
He bore God's wrath and perfect justice against us while on the cross, though He did nothing to deserve it.
(Colossians 2:14; Romans 5:9; Romans 8:1).
After three days in the grave, He resurrected and conquered both death and evil.
(Luke 24:7; Genesis 3:15; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 1:18).
Anyone who trusts in Him and what He has done has eternal life, and has been both justified and forgiven by God.
(John 3:16, 36, 6:47; Romans 3:28, 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9, 4:32; Galatians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 5:18).
Why does God judge the sinner?
Because God is righteous and just, and must punish sin.
What is sin?
Disobedience to God's holy law and commandments.
Why did Jesus die for our freedom if He didn't deserve it?
He voluntarily did it to save us and restore us back to God.
1) the biggest overarching problem for me is that none of this is actually substantiated by evidence. But I understand that it's faith based so I'll let it go.
2) if Adam and eve had no concept of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how did they know disobeying god was wrong? Also god being omniscient knew before making them that they would eat from it and by extension planned for them to eat it and therfore caused the fall of man.
3) the idea of inherited sin is not just. You can say god knows best or gods morals are higher than mine but then I ask are things moral because God commands them, or does God command them because they are moral? If it's the prior then God could deem rape moral and it would be, and that just doesn't make sense. If it's the later then God becomes just a messenger rather than a creator of morals.
4) a virgin giving birth is impossible. I know this is supposed to be considered a miracle but without sufficient evidence how am I supposed to just accept that it happened?
5) Jesus technically did deserve crucifixion. He did violate Roman law and that was the proper punishment for the time. I don't think that's moral but that was the law of that land.
6) Same with the Virgin birth the resurrection needs alot more going for it than just what's written in the bible.
7) I don't think God does need to punish sin. God doesn't "need" to do anyyhing. He's running the show. Ive never understood why a sacrifice was necessary and why god couldn't just forgive humanity.
That's about it.
2) if Adam and eve had no concept of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how did they know disobeying god was wrong? Also god being omniscient knew before making them that they would eat from it and by extension planned for them to eat it and therfore caused the fall of man.
3) the idea of inherited sin is not just. You can say god knows best or gods morals are higher than mine but then I ask are things moral because God commands them, or does God command them because they are moral? If it's the prior then God could deem rape moral and it would be, and that just doesn't make sense. If it's the later then God becomes just a messenger rather than a creator of morals.
4) a virgin giving birth is impossible. I know this is supposed to be considered a miracle but without sufficient evidence how am I supposed to just accept that it happened?
5) Jesus technically did deserve crucifixion. He did violate Roman law and that was the proper punishment for the time. I don't think that's moral but that was the law of that land.
6) Same with the Virgin birth the resurrection needs alot more going for it than just what's written in the bible.
7) I don't think God does need to punish sin. God doesn't "need" to do anyyhing. He's running the show. Ive never understood why a sacrifice was necessary and why god couldn't just forgive humanity.
That's about it.
S
They knew it was wrong, eating the fruit of the tree made them into sinners. God is the not cause of evil, otherwise it is not evil or God is not God. Everything God makes is good, sin is disobedience to Him. So if sin came by God, it wouldn't be sin because it obeyed Him. God allows sin to exist at a extent, but He is not the Author of it. In the end, sin and death will be destroyed.
Sin being inherited is not the cause of God, it by man who took that step into disobedience. If man was made holy and sinned once, he is no longer holy and neither is his descendants...pretty cut clear lol.
God is the maker of morality. He is the standard of what is right, not humans. So whatever God says is moral is moral because He is Creator. When you say something is wrong but it is right to God, you would be in error because you have no real power to justify your claim, it's mere opinion.
You must go beyond natural understanding when it comes to God. If God created natural things, He also has the power to create miraculous things. Don't limit God by human understanding and perception.
Actually the Jews accused Him of blasphemy without any evidence against Him. They handed Him over to the Romans to crucify Him, because they didn't want to. God planned this so the sacrifice would be established and His will to be accomplished.
Again, don't limit God who is infinite. A infinite Person doesn't have to always have to do things according to our understanding...
If God doesn't punish sin, He can't be just. As a good and righteous and just God, He must do what's right. If a policeman witnessed a public rape, what should his response be? To ignore it because he's a cop, or to do what is right because that's a criminal offense?
God must punish sin, so in a sacrifice the sin would be imputed in order for us to be justified. And the sacrifice would be the substitute for our offenses before God. Makes perfect sense.
Sin being inherited is not the cause of God, it by man who took that step into disobedience. If man was made holy and sinned once, he is no longer holy and neither is his descendants...pretty cut clear lol.
God is the maker of morality. He is the standard of what is right, not humans. So whatever God says is moral is moral because He is Creator. When you say something is wrong but it is right to God, you would be in error because you have no real power to justify your claim, it's mere opinion.
You must go beyond natural understanding when it comes to God. If God created natural things, He also has the power to create miraculous things. Don't limit God by human understanding and perception.
Actually the Jews accused Him of blasphemy without any evidence against Him. They handed Him over to the Romans to crucify Him, because they didn't want to. God planned this so the sacrifice would be established and His will to be accomplished.
Again, don't limit God who is infinite. A infinite Person doesn't have to always have to do things according to our understanding...
If God doesn't punish sin, He can't be just. As a good and righteous and just God, He must do what's right. If a policeman witnessed a public rape, what should his response be? To ignore it because he's a cop, or to do what is right because that's a criminal offense?
God must punish sin, so in a sacrifice the sin would be imputed in order for us to be justified. And the sacrifice would be the substitute for our offenses before God. Makes perfect sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
The tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therfore before eating it Adam and eve would've had literally no concept of what wrong was. So how can you say they knew it was wrong when they had no concept of what wrong was yet?
I just demonstrated above they had no idea what they were doing was wrong. Also it's not clear cut at all. The actions of my grandfather are entirely separate from my own. Regardless of the fact that we share genetic material. It does not logically follow at all that divine repercussions are transferred from father to son at all. Also, sin is a concept, not a physical object. The one attaching a value to sin is god. He is the one who is considering sin as transferable. It's not some process beyond his control and therfore he could've just stopped it.
Fair enough. Therfore if God said murder was moral then it must be moral. That doesn't make sense. Also what about circumstances? Is stealing bad? God says yes it is wrong. Well what if you're stealing from a rich man to feed a starving child? Is it still wrong? What about killing to defend another? Morality isn't black and white right or wrong. In a world with so many different contexts it can't be.
You misunderstand me. I understand god is supposedly omnipotent and that this is supposed to be a miracle. I'm not limiting god I'm just explaining that this is a story of something defying everything we know about reality and therfore needs to have a lot of evidence to support that it actually happened. The bibles one testimony alone isn't enough evidence to persuade me that it actually occured.
No evidence? Jesus was walking around preaching everywhere! He wasn't hiding anything. The Romans had all the evidence in the wirld. And even if they didn't once Jesus was in custody he admitted to the crime.
Again I know that. I'm not saying that God couldn't have done it. I'm just saying that there's not enough evidence to persuade me that he did
I thought god decides what is just? If he's the authority on what is just then he can totally decide not to punish sin if he wants. Also the cop analogy isn't correct because the cop doesn't decide what is moral. He has to act because that is his job. Also he isn't the one doing the punishing, he is just detaining the criminal. The court then decidea his punishment and our courts operate different than god. The court seeks to a) Choose an appropriate punishment fitting of the crime. And b) to rehabilitate rather than outright punish. Hell is not a just punishment at all. It is an infinite punishment for a finite crime and far more brutal and twisted than necessary. It also does not correct behavior. A non believer who goes to hell will not know why they are There nor will they learn from their actions.
No it doesnt. God doesn't need to punish sin he can forgive it. Why can't he accept his own atonement for our sins without a sacrifice? God makes the sacrifice necessary for no reason.
I just demonstrated above they had no idea what they were doing was wrong. Also it's not clear cut at all. The actions of my grandfather are entirely separate from my own. Regardless of the fact that we share genetic material. It does not logically follow at all that divine repercussions are transferred from father to son at all. Also, sin is a concept, not a physical object. The one attaching a value to sin is god. He is the one who is considering sin as transferable. It's not some process beyond his control and therfore he could've just stopped it.
Fair enough. Therfore if God said murder was moral then it must be moral. That doesn't make sense. Also what about circumstances? Is stealing bad? God says yes it is wrong. Well what if you're stealing from a rich man to feed a starving child? Is it still wrong? What about killing to defend another? Morality isn't black and white right or wrong. In a world with so many different contexts it can't be.
You must go beyond natural understanding when it comes to God. If God created natural things, He also has the power to create miraculous things. Don't limit God by human understanding and perception.
No evidence? Jesus was walking around preaching everywhere! He wasn't hiding anything. The Romans had all the evidence in the wirld. And even if they didn't once Jesus was in custody he admitted to the crime.
Again I know that. I'm not saying that God couldn't have done it. I'm just saying that there's not enough evidence to persuade me that he did
I thought god decides what is just? If he's the authority on what is just then he can totally decide not to punish sin if he wants. Also the cop analogy isn't correct because the cop doesn't decide what is moral. He has to act because that is his job. Also he isn't the one doing the punishing, he is just detaining the criminal. The court then decidea his punishment and our courts operate different than god. The court seeks to a) Choose an appropriate punishment fitting of the crime. And b) to rehabilitate rather than outright punish. Hell is not a just punishment at all. It is an infinite punishment for a finite crime and far more brutal and twisted than necessary. It also does not correct behavior. A non believer who goes to hell will not know why they are There nor will they learn from their actions.
No it doesnt. God doesn't need to punish sin he can forgive it. Why can't he accept his own atonement for our sins without a sacrifice? God makes the sacrifice necessary for no reason.
Alright SkepticJosh, let's look at this from a different angle. You are completely correct, it is all but impossible to prove anything that happened in the Garden of Eden. What we can do is intelligently speculate. Nobody can disprove anything in the Bible. The people who try, generally end up seeing how trustworthy it is as a historical document. Most atheists assume Christians are foolish, closeminded, fairytale believers who spend their time looking down at others, and talking to the walls. That's not the case. Many esteemed positions in the science and history communities are held by believers. They have examined the facts and concluded all creation is extremely complex and therefore required a designer and engineer. If you doubt that than you possess more faith than any Christian. Then if we were created, by Who? Let's ask the most historical figure of theology. If you read what Jesus claimed and accept that not every prophet changes the very timeline, then you might come to the same conclusion I have. God became man and dwelt among us. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Believe it.
There is just as much evidence for what happened in the garden of eden (if it ever existed) for any biblical claim. If you can't prove what happened in the garden you cant prove that God exists, Jesus was born of a virgin, he was resurrected, ect. You can only speculate. And seeing as there's no evidence to prove let alone support any of these claims, the rational, default positon is to not believe them.
That's not how it works. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. In this case that is the bible and you. You must prove these things happened. I don't have to disprove anything. But even though we don't have to some things have been disproven. The Roman census that caused Mary and Joseph to return home never occured. There is no documentaton of it nor any census that required the relocation of anyone. And Noah's flood has been found to be literally impossible in dozens of ways. If you want I could get into all of them.
No not most atheists. Just the minority of assholes.
Yes Christians are scientists, but that doesn't change the fact that 98% of the scientific community is non religious especially in the fields of biology, genetics, and planetary sciences. Also they are clearly not examine the facts or not examining them well enough if that is their conclusion because that argument is flawed entirely. Complexity does not equal a designer. That does not follow logically nor do the facts point in that direction.
No. Faith is belief without evidence. There is no evidence for a designer whatsoever. That argument above is a fallacy and an assumption and doesn't actually contain any evidence. The facts on the other hand point to big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. These take no faith at all because there is evidence. Your last point there presupposes that the world is a creation and thus needs a creator. It's not a matter of who until we see evidence of a who. Right now we have no evidence that there is a who. Right now everything is showing that it is the result of natural unguided processes.
"Most historical figure of theology?" More historical than mohammad? There's just as much evidence for him and what those stories say. But whateen I'll roll with it. I don't really know what you mean here. If I read about what Jesus said about prophets then I will conclude that all the evidence is wrong and that the earth was created by god? How? Not gonna happen.
That's not how it works. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. In this case that is the bible and you. You must prove these things happened. I don't have to disprove anything. But even though we don't have to some things have been disproven. The Roman census that caused Mary and Joseph to return home never occured. There is no documentaton of it nor any census that required the relocation of anyone. And Noah's flood has been found to be literally impossible in dozens of ways. If you want I could get into all of them.
No not most atheists. Just the minority of assholes.
Yes Christians are scientists, but that doesn't change the fact that 98% of the scientific community is non religious especially in the fields of biology, genetics, and planetary sciences. Also they are clearly not examine the facts or not examining them well enough if that is their conclusion because that argument is flawed entirely. Complexity does not equal a designer. That does not follow logically nor do the facts point in that direction.
No. Faith is belief without evidence. There is no evidence for a designer whatsoever. That argument above is a fallacy and an assumption and doesn't actually contain any evidence. The facts on the other hand point to big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. These take no faith at all because there is evidence. Your last point there presupposes that the world is a creation and thus needs a creator. It's not a matter of who until we see evidence of a who. Right now we have no evidence that there is a who. Right now everything is showing that it is the result of natural unguided processes.
"Most historical figure of theology?" More historical than mohammad? There's just as much evidence for him and what those stories say. But whateen I'll roll with it. I don't really know what you mean here. If I read about what Jesus said about prophets then I will conclude that all the evidence is wrong and that the earth was created by god? How? Not gonna happen.
Virgin births are actually possible even without miracles. It's called parthenogenesis. But usually they're followed with strange abnormalities, and all offspring are female because of a lack of Y chromosomes. So virgin births? Possible. The virgin birth of a male child in the Bible? Probably still falls under the category of the miraculous.
The Hebrews had a sacrificial system that made logical sense to them. I think it's up to us to figure out how exactly it made sense rather than just jump the gun and claim that it was completely arbitrary and had no greater cultural implications at that time. So I can provide you with one opinion on it:
God has declared that the soul that sins will die. God is also against hypocrisy and double standards. He still has pity on those who have sinned, so what does he do? Keep in mind that he put the price of sin at death. Whoever sinned needed to pay that price. Since he didn't want them to pay it should he just say that it shouldn't be paid at all anymore? Or should he pay the price? If he didn't pay the price wouldn't that be a double standard? He asks us to pay a certain price but doesn't want to pay it himself? So essentially it depends on God's own moral standard of non-hypocrisy and why God set the price of sin at death.
You may find other opinions, but I hope this helps a little to understand other points of view.
The Hebrews had a sacrificial system that made logical sense to them. I think it's up to us to figure out how exactly it made sense rather than just jump the gun and claim that it was completely arbitrary and had no greater cultural implications at that time. So I can provide you with one opinion on it:
God has declared that the soul that sins will die. God is also against hypocrisy and double standards. He still has pity on those who have sinned, so what does he do? Keep in mind that he put the price of sin at death. Whoever sinned needed to pay that price. Since he didn't want them to pay it should he just say that it shouldn't be paid at all anymore? Or should he pay the price? If he didn't pay the price wouldn't that be a double standard? He asks us to pay a certain price but doesn't want to pay it himself? So essentially it depends on God's own moral standard of non-hypocrisy and why God set the price of sin at death.
You may find other opinions, but I hope this helps a little to understand other points of view.