I would argue that it is not a drive to survive in infants, but rather a response to discomfort that leads to crying. But what is even more important to infant survival is the need for human connection. It was discovered back in WW1 that infants that had their physical needs met, but with minimal human interaction often died despite their physical needs being met, and those few who did not die grew up very emotionally damaged. Thus. the evidence suggests that it is not selfishness, nor a drive to survive, but a recognition that the proper human state is a relational one, not the supposedly more mature one of humans being separable physical entities. But then to follow that to its logical conclusion would imply that sin is not a moral failing but a failing of relationships, and such would trash traditional theology Traditional theoplogy must be correct regardless of the fact that readily available evidence says otherwise.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- 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.
Acknowledged, I am just pointing out that karmaism is not necessarily associated with pre-existence. They are two different subjects that have been combined only in one specific culture, by what logic is unknown. As for pre-existence, it is the easiest solution to explain a great deal of evidence, but one can actively choose to ignore whatever evidence they wish to.
Well, I believe every believer is called to serve Christ Jesus as Lord, so I do agree with that distinction,
but I was exploring whether it would be compatible with the NT teaching regarding our inheritance/birthright/(estate?).
Yes, Jesus said he came to serve rather than to rule, as you noted.
I see no meaningful difference between a drive and response, but I agree that "human connection" is needed for "emotional health".
The relational need includes God. Sin is both a moral and relational failing; they are synonymous.
Traditional theology might be partly or mainly right or wrong, and the same is true of non-traditional theology.
No human understanding is perfect.
Right?
The first estate serve as well. However, the second estate are assigned to write scripture, provide prophecy, and things of that nature. Thus, no one is writing scripture now. Although, many try to fulfill the role of second estate and deceive many.
One guy that stands out is Jim Jones from about 50 years ago. Claimed to be a prophet of God, but was tricked by Lucifer and killed his followers. So anyone claiming to be of that stature is a false prophet and not second estate. That is, only first estate teachers and pastors, etc. are here now. There are no second estate called at this time.
So the church leaders at this time are first estate and must teach from the Bible.
All other doctrines such as Hindu, Muslem, etc. are doctrines of Lucifer. They have no second estate leading them.
Only the second estate are called to lead the Savior's people, and they are recorded in the Bible. That is, the Bible comes from the second estate who were called to give us the Savior's doctrine.
Thank you, GWH for being a good sport.
My point is that only the Bible contains the servants of Jesus Christ teaching his doctrine. These servants are the second estate.
The first estate must teach from the teaching of the second estate. The second estate receives instruction from Christ.
All other doctrines are false. So anyone not relying upon the Bible is teaching false doctrine. And these are not only the atheists that you have identified, but also the atheists following Lucifer outside the house of Israel. That is, Israel is the house of the Savior, the Christian populations. Because, all second estate are of Israel, and the Christians follow second estate in the Bible.
This does not mean that Israel in general leads the Savior's people. But that the Savior has identified the house that his doctrine comes to the earth through. And that is why Lucifer does all that he can to destroy the Jews. To stop the Savior's doctrine from coming to the earth. But he does not know who the second estate are, so he tries to kill all Jews.
And he has done this for a very long time. Because he does not understand scripture. And we as followers of Christ only understand scripture to the degree that we are allowed.
My point is that only the Bible contains the servants of Jesus Christ teaching his doctrine. These servants are the second estate.
The first estate must teach from the teaching of the second estate. The second estate receives instruction from Christ.
All other doctrines are false. So anyone not relying upon the Bible is teaching false doctrine. And these are not only the atheists that you have identified, but also the atheists following Lucifer outside the house of Israel. That is, Israel is the house of the Savior, the Christian populations. Because, all second estate are of Israel, and the Christians follow second estate in the Bible.
This does not mean that Israel in general leads the Savior's people. But that the Savior has identified the house that his doctrine comes to the earth through. And that is why Lucifer does all that he can to destroy the Jews. To stop the Savior's doctrine from coming to the earth. But he does not know who the second estate are, so he tries to kill all Jews.
And he has done this for a very long time. Because he does not understand scripture. And we as followers of Christ only understand scripture to the degree that we are allowed.
I can see why merely teaching from the Bible is only first estate, but are those who go to the next level by systematically harmonizing Scripture and those who have true insights inspired by God's Word second estate, even though their writing is NOT part of the canon?
Maybe first estate plus (1.5)?
Examples I have in mind include:
1. God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) may be denoted by the use of the Greek word kerygma, meaning proclamation or preaching, referring to the good news (Gospel) concerning salvation to heaven and from a just hell (Acts 2:22-24, 1Cor. 15:1-8, cf. Rom. 1:16,
Gal. 1:6-12, Col. 1:21-23). Teachings that are secondary or subsequent to learning GRFS may be indicated by another Greek word, didache, which means teaching. The didache may be very important and requisite for becoming spiritually mature, but it is not most important or necessary to know/believe in order to be saved.
2. There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (Eph. 2:8-10, 1Cor. 15:10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.
3. The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in these statements can be explained or elaborated as follows:
1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.
6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).
Not sure I understand what you mean by "And we as followers of Christ only understand scripture to the degree that we are allowed."
Over...
I also hung out with them as I wanted to be a seed planter. Asking them questions why they didn't believe in God and other discussions were interesting and who knows maybe a seed was planted. After all Jesus hung out with sinners too. Since we are all sinners I figured I was in good company.
What was really funny was I had a conversation with God about two weeks after joining CC.. I said man these Christians are mean I think I'm going to quit the site and He told me you are a seed planter stick around a little longer. It's a good think I did because I met Tourist on this site and we ended up getting married and will be celebrating our 12th anniversary this year. So I'm glad the atheists filled in so I could end up meeting Tourist and many other really nice Christians on this site.
Planting seeds is good.
Jesus hung out with his disciples.
He was crucified because of sinners.
Jesus lives per 1Cor. 15:19.
He was crucified because of you and me - we are sinners. Forgiven sinners but sinners none the less.Planting seeds is good.
Jesus hung out with his disciples.
He was crucified because of sinners.
Jesus lives per 1Cor. 15:19.
I seem to remember that his name was Cycel or something like that. Kind of amusing and treated others with respect.
Thank you, GWH.
Scripture is written for everyone to read. So, it has multiple applications. For instance, a twenty-year old woman is spoken to by God via scripture, and an old man is spoken to by God via scripture. So each person receives what they need as God speaks to them. The young woman, to her level of understanding, and the old man, to his level of understanding.
Likewise, scriptorians receive instruction from God via scripture to the level that they are at. Some a higher level, and others a lower level. Nevertheless, the multiple levels are important so that all reading scripture are edified. That is, a scriptorian with one year of study is at a lower level than a scriptorian with forty years of study. But they both receive instruction from God via scripture.
For those individuals choosing not to study scripture, they are taught by great teachers.
Nevertheless, they are all first estate receiving instruction from the Bible.
It follows that there are higher levels of understanding to which we seek. And there are levels to which we are not allowed to aspire. These are the mysteries of God.
I grew up with Christian parents and my life revolved around church, but as a high school senior I encountered atheism when a friend became an atheist and my favorite teacher had been a minister but was agnostic. This prompted me to search Scripture for answers that the pastor's weekly sermons about how to be saved had not taught. Eventually I felt led to become a minister in order to share the answers I found with Christians who might witness to atheist friends or at least be edified and not deceived by their argumenta. As a military chaplain I debated atheists on the AKO online forum, and I was invited to speak at a meeting of the atheists in Austin. Now that I am retired, I would like to pass on what the Lord has taught me before I die to those on CC. I have a similar hope with regard to people claiming to be theists and Christians who have heretical beliefs, so I amended the OP to include them.
I began philosophically like Rene Descartes (d.1650) by exploring whether there is some truth everyone affirms at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality, and I proposed three axiomatic truths that even skeptics talk as though they assume: 1. the reality of the student, 2. finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively as David Hume (d. 1776) opined (cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12, 2Cor. 5:7), and 3. uncertainty does not prevent knowledge with sufficient confidence even when communicating doubts. Thus we all ought to be willing to witness with the understanding that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. In the words of Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.), “Come now, let us reason together.” Discussion of ultimate reality uses a common language as the means, and I hope English will suffice for you and me.
Believing that truth is unified and so it does not matter much where discussion begins, I sought to discern the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Although only a newborn begins with a blank slate, I began by being unbiased and imagining that I suddenly began to exist as an adult human being, like Adam and Eve in Genesis. I guessed that my immediate concern would be survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, perhaps I would wonder why I was “born”, how I should behave, and what I ought to accomplish with my life. As I pondered these questions, I discerned two qualitatively different answers.
Do you want to guess what they were?
I began philosophically like Rene Descartes (d.1650) by exploring whether there is some truth everyone affirms at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality, and I proposed three axiomatic truths that even skeptics talk as though they assume: 1. the reality of the student, 2. finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively as David Hume (d. 1776) opined (cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12, 2Cor. 5:7), and 3. uncertainty does not prevent knowledge with sufficient confidence even when communicating doubts. Thus we all ought to be willing to witness with the understanding that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. In the words of Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.), “Come now, let us reason together.” Discussion of ultimate reality uses a common language as the means, and I hope English will suffice for you and me.
Believing that truth is unified and so it does not matter much where discussion begins, I sought to discern the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Although only a newborn begins with a blank slate, I began by being unbiased and imagining that I suddenly began to exist as an adult human being, like Adam and Eve in Genesis. I guessed that my immediate concern would be survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, perhaps I would wonder why I was “born”, how I should behave, and what I ought to accomplish with my life. As I pondered these questions, I discerned two qualitatively different answers.
Do you want to guess what they were?