Getting into science does not resolve the issues of faith and atheism. It's just a distraction from the arguments that SHOULD be discussed when dealing with atheism. So, scientific debates aside, the central problem with atheism is a lack of sufficient arguments to support human dignity. Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights.
For the benefit of people in the Orthodox faith, I'm going to quote here a small section of the Roman Catholic Church's Vatican II constitution called Gaudium et Spes, published on 7 Dec. 1965, which the Orthodox Church would also agree with, and which would help illuminate the necessity of faith for a correct understanding and moral application of human dignity:
Chapter I:20, 21:
"Modern atheism often takes a systematic form. There are a number of reasons for this, among them an insistence on human autonomy so great as to put obstacles on the way of any degree of dependence on God. For those who profess atheism of this kind, freedom means that humanity constitutes its own end and it the sole maker, in total control, of its own history. They claim that this outlook cannot be reconciled with the assertion of a Lord who is author and end of all things, or that at least it makes such an affirmation altogether unnecessary. The sense of power which modern technical progress produces in people may encourage this outlook.
"One form of modern atheism which should not be ignored is that which looks to people's economic and social emancipation for their liberation. It holds that religion, of its very nature, frustrates such emancipation by investing people's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving them and discouraging them from working for a better form of life on earth. That us why those who hold such views, wherever they gain control of the state, violently attack religion, and in order to spread atheism, especially in the education of young people, make use of all the means by which civil authority can bring pressure to bear on its subjects.
"The church, faithful to its obligations both to God and humanity, cannot cease, as in the past, to deplore, sadly yet with the utmost firmness, those harmful teachings and ways of acting which are in conflict with reason and with common human experience, and which cast humanity down from the noble state to which it is born. It tries nevertheless to seek out the secret motives which lead the atheistic mind to deny God. Well knowing how important the problems raised by atheism, and urged by its love for everyone it considers that these motives deserve an earnest and more thorough scrutiny.
"The church holds that to acknowledge God is in no way to diminish human dignity, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. Women and men have in fact been placed in the world by God, who created them as intelligent and free beings; but over and above this they are called as daughters and sons to intimacy with God and to share in his happiness. It further teaches that hope in a life to come does not take away from the importance of the duties of this life on earth but rather adds to it by giving new motives for fulfilling those duties. When, on the other hand, people are deprived of this divine support and without hope of eternal life their dignity is deeply impaired, as may so often be seen today. The problems of life and death, of guilt and of suffering, remain unsolved, so that people are frequently thrown into despair.
"Meanwhile, everybody remains a question to themselves, one that is dimly perceived and left unanswered. For there are times, especially in the major events of life, when nobody can altogether escape from such self-questioning. God alone, who calls people to deeper thought and to more humble probing, can fully and with complete certainty supply an answer to this questioning.
"Atheism must be countered both by properly presenting true teaching and by the full and complete life of the church and of its members. For it is the function of the church to render God the Father and his incarnate Son present and as it were visible, while ceaselessly renewing and purifying itself under the guidance of the holy Spirit. This is brought about chiefly by the witness of a living and mature faith, one namely that is so well formed that it can see difficulties clearly and overcome them. Many martyrs have borne, and continue to bear, a splendid witness to this faith. This faith should show its fruitfulness by penetrating the entire life, even the worldly activities, of those who believe, and by urging them to be loving and just, especially towards those in need. Lastly, what does most to show God's presence clearly is the familial love of the faithful who, being all of one mind and spirit, work together for the faith of the Gospel and present themselves as a sign of unity.
"Although the church altogether rejects atheism, it nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men and women, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent. The church therefore deplores the discrimination between believers and unbelievers which some civil authorities unjustly practice, in defiance of the fundamental rights of the human person. It demands effective freedom for the faithful to be allowed to build up God's temple in this world also. It courteously invited atheists to weigh the merits of the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.
"For the church knows full well that its message is in harmony with the most secret desired of the human heart, since it champions the dignity of humanity's calling, giving hope once more to those who already despair of their higher destiny. Its message, far from diminishing humanity, helps people to develop themselves by bestowing light, life, and freedom. Apart from this message nothing is able to satisfy the human heart: 'You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rest in you.' (St. Augustine's Confessions, I:1)."
Chapter IV:41: "Contemporary women and men are in process of developing their personality and of increasingly discovering and affirming their rights. The church is entrusted with the task of manifesting to them the mystery of God, who is their final destiny; in doing so it discloses to them the meaning of their own existence, the innermost truth about themselves. The church knows well that God alone, whom it serves, can satisfy the deepest cravings of the human heart, for it can never be fully content with the world and what it has to offer. The church also realizes that men and women are continually being aroused by the Spirit of God and that they will never be utterly indifferent to religion -- a fact confirmed by the experience of past ages and by a variety of evidence today. For people will always be keen to know, if only in a general way, what is the meaning of their life, their activity, their death. The very presence of the church recalls these problems to their minds. The most perfect answer to these questions is to be found in God alone, who created women and men in his own image and redeemed them from sin; and this answer is given in the revelation in Christ his Son who became man. To follow Christ the perfect human is to become more human oneself.
"By this faith the church can keep the dignity of human nature out of the reach of the changing opinions which, for example, either devalue the human body or glorify it. There is no human law so well fitted to safeguard the personal dignity and human freedom as is the Gospel which Christ entrusted to the church; for the Gospel announces and proclaims the freedom of the daughters and sons of God, it rejects all bondage resulting from sin, it scrupulously respects the dignity of conscience and its freedom of choice, it never ceases to encourage the employment of human talents in the service of God and humanity, and, finally, it commends everyone to the charity of all. This is nothing other than the basic law of the christian dispensation. The fact that it is the same God who is at once saviour and creator, Lord of human history and of the history of salvation, does not mean that this divine order deprives creation, and humanity in particular, of their rightful autonomy; on the contrary, it restores and strengthens its dignity.
"In virtue of the Gospel entrusted to it, the church proclaims human rights; it acknowledges and holds in high esteem the dynamic approach of today which is fostering these rights all over the world. But this approach needs to be animated by the spirit of the Gospel and preserved from all traces of false autonomy. For there is a temptation to feel that our personal rights are fully maintained only when we are free from every restriction of divine law. But this is the way leading to the extinction of human dignity, not its preservation."
"Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights."
leviticus 25:44-46
And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying....."as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves."
"If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb?"
lol yes in this verse Job seems to recognises that all people are equal, can't say much for God in Leviticus. If "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights" then why give people permission to encroach upon them in the first place? Is God a moral relativist? Because a lot of responses I seem to get is, "well thats just how people operated those days, and God just gave them instructions they could work with.." I personally don't think slavery is moral under any circumstance or for any reason, and being omnipotent/omni-benevolent God did not have 'bend to the context of the culture'.
Thoughts?
Peter A,
there's no sense of self worth when you're owned by another person. And I completely disagree with the claim that "our only God given right is the right to repent". For the most part because I don't believe in God and even if I did, I would also believe that we have inalienable rights, such as the right to chose life when one wants to live.
I really don't remember when I "admitted" that I was 'wise' or that I chose a road to satisfy my body and mind. If I did please show it to me and I'll happily address it. Because As it stands none of these things are true.
Moreover, what agenda? It amazes me that I can't post anything without someone accusing me of manipulation even after being completely honest about who I am and my interests (which happens to consist of these discussions), then have the hide to tell others not to judge me, and then say 'we love you'.
First off, I would like to take a stab at the tittle of this thread. Atheists and Coptic Orthodoxy have no need to clash at each other.Its not Atheist VS Coptic Orthodox. The greatest atheist and the holiest monk are still brothers, and need to show love. If it is a competition of who is right, the atheist will never be caused to see God. In the end, the greatest apologist and the greatest atheist come down to a stalemate of, "it is possible, but I choose to believe...."
Gabe, I myself have been and am, and will probably continue struggling with the battle against internal atheism. It is such a compelling ideology because it is easy to see things so materialistically. The bible in essence can be broken down by people such as Hitchens and Dawkins simply because of the tone they use when speaking about it. It is made to seem like foolishness. However, one could do the same with any atheistic literature. I could make the God delusion sound stupid even though it is a decently written book, simply with the tone of voice I use. In an increasingly atheistic world, it is difficult to maintain a theistic worldview.
The way I see it, "no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1st Corinthians 12:3) Now before the apologists and atheists jump on me for using a bible verse, I am not trying to prove anything, but I am rather just trying to show the way I think. You understand Chemistry using test tubes, biology using microscopes, and astronomy using telescopes, so I will use the bible to see if there is a God of the Bible, and while this may not work for others, it works for me. Anyway, maybe your atheism (and my extreme doubt at that) is not due to knowledge, but is rather due to us having extinguished the Holy Spirit within us, and that to see God, we need that Holy Spirit. Of course, a Christian calls it the Holy Spirit and an atheist would call it a delusion, but that is about as far as the debate goes.
What I am trying to say is that God has left us complete free will. We are not needed by him. During my period of doubt, I remember fighting God and telling him I hate him because he doesn't exist. Then I talked to my spiritual friends who said to me, "What do you think you are going to do? What are you threatening God with... That you are going to hurt yourself? Don't be foolish." This freedom is a very scary feeling. We can go towards Him or we can forsake him, and in any case, those who ascribe to any side of the argument seem to be correct.
That is why I respect you, Gabe. You are not any more foolish, cunning or satanic then anyone here. In my eyes, it is not atheism that is the first problem that you are dealing with, but a lack of drive to believe. Maybe that could be the first thing fixed? My suggestion is don't give up too easily. "He rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) I plan on looking for God until the day I die, and yes, this will be wearisome, and arid. Maybe he'll make himself known to me.
"Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." (James 4:8) Maybe, Gabe, we have a lot of searching to do. We have a lot of purification we have to go through. I hope that you can take some time to be "foolish" and accept the possibility of God; then you will see that it is not folly at all.
I have rambled on too long.... Good Luck, my struggling brother Gabe. I know this may mean nothing to you yet, and you may laugh at this, but I will keep you in my prayers and we will ask God to reveal Himself to us unworthy fools.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=9818.msg150126#msg150126 date=1326074714] can't say much for God in Leviticus. If "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights" then why give people permission to encroach upon them in the first place? Maybe the whole book of Job can answer that question for you. Job also questioned God's motives and reasons, not about slavery but about punishment for unknown sins. And Job indicted that God cannot be unjust, punishing someone for sins he does not know he committed. Did God say, "Yes, Job you're right. I have to agree with you." No he spends nearly 1/3 of the book stating "Who is this who speaks without understanding?" Even if God does supposedly encroach upon human rights, it doesn't give the created, narrow limited human mind power or superiority over an uncreated, omniscient and limitless divine mind.
I personally don't think slavery is moral under any circumstance or for any reason, and being omnipotent/omni-benevolent God did not have 'bend to the context of the culture'.
This only applies if your definition of slavery is the same as the omnipoten/omni-benevolent God's. The issue was already discussed here. Slavery in the Old Testament was a voluntary action. It was a means for people with financial difficulty to work and subject themselves and their families for food and lodging. It can be interpreted as a benevolent solution to financial disaster.
Slavery in colonial United States and Europe was involuntary and subjected coercion fueled by racism and immorality. The slaves were not only coerced into forced labor but they were seen as non-humans with no legal equality. This is not how God worked in the Old Testament. Don't confuse the two.
there's no sense of self worth when you're owned by another person. And I completely disagree with the claim that "our only God given right is the right to repent". For the most part because I don't believe in God and even if I did, I would also believe that we have inalienable rights, such as the right to chose life when one wants to live.
Wrong. If you had an inalienable right to choose life, then there would be no death since no rational human being would choose death. Yet every human being dies. Therefore, you do not have the absolute right to choose life. You only have a relative right to choose survival in situations you can control. Additionally, without God you have no choice for eternal life. Without the resurrection, death has complete control over you. As all atheist believe, when a person dies they become nothing. At least, the Christian can choose something after death.
Moreover, what agenda? It amazes me that I can't post anything without someone accusing me of manipulation even after being completely honest about who I am and my interests (which happens to consist of these discussions), then have the hide to tell others not to judge me, and then say 'we love you'.
I will be the first to apologize for starting the accusations. I can see you're trying to be honest. However, if someone insists on a mistake or insists on sinning and tries to convince others that he is right, then the only natural reaction is skepticism. If this is not the case, and only God knows the heart of men, then accept my apology. If the skepticism is warranted, then examine yourself and make your own decision on what to do.
[quote author=Loki Corvinus link=topic=9818.msg149887#msg149887 date=1325621664] [quote author=Servant of Jesus Christ link=topic=9818.msg121085#msg121085 date=1287625475] (Correct me if I am wrong) Okay, so if the big bang doesn't exist, than wouldn't the Universe be infinite? Thank you, God bless.
If it were infinite, the sky would all be lighted by an infinite expanse of stars which would be an infinite source of light and the sky never dark. This is called the dark sky paradox. We do know through observation and measurements that everything is expanding and moving apart which suggests everything had a single center point of origin and is expanding outward. I will be the first to point out, that God could have created this expansion from a single point.
With or without the Big Bang theory, we can't prove that the universe is or isn't infinite. All theories rely on assumptions. Olbers' paradox (the dark sky paradox) seems to say the universe isn't infinite. The Big Bang theory was a counter argument of Olbers' paradox to show the universe is infinite. Olbers' paradox relies on the assumption that every layer of the expanding universe has an equal density of stars (isotropic cosmology). Other assumptions include that the human eye (or any light spectrometer) has the ability to view all different types and sizes of stars. Since neither humans nor computers can see an infinite amount of stars, undetected stars will only create backround noise, decreasing illuminosity. Therefore, the sky will appear dark. This assumption directly challenges Olbers' paradox without submitting to the existence of the Big Bang.
I know this seems like a good defense for agnosticism. In reality, it doesn't say anything about an infinite God or an infinite universe. The inability to describe infinity does not negate the existence of infinite beings.
[quote=Hebrews 11:3]By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
I asked Gabriel the same question last month. This was his answer.
Read the thread and see for yourselves. The only reason for an atheist to come to this site or any church service without changing their beliefs is not truth. There are other ulterior motives. As I stated, the atheist comes to sites like this to plant doubt in our own faith, not seek the truth. And that thread showed how easy it is for us to get sucked into false logic.
Gabriel, There is truly no purpose for you being here or in church. You may experience acceptance wherever you attend church, but then again you may act differently there or give the impression that you are interested in converting, or something similar. I do not think anyone would ask you to leave church, in that sense you are allowed to be there, not accepted. However I have dealt with atheists at my church and have warned them when they mocked the church that if they did it again I would tell them to leave, if they did not, then I would physically remove them from the church. Not violently. Church is a place that we celebrate the liturgy, that we work on our salvation, that we receive the body and blood of Christ. In the old days they used to have all unbaptized leave before the bread and wine became the body and blood. I have no problem with you staying, but if you open your mouth and speak against the church, I hope that someone is there to shut it. I dont dislike you and I am not advocating violence, but I am not stupid, I know what you are doing. Its like if I were hanging out in a crackhouse and it got raided, do you really expect the police to believe that "I just like going there"? You have ulterior motives and they are apparent, please stop.
I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to try understand where I'm coming from. WHile I don't take to atheism because people undermine Christianity with a particular tone, I've found that through discussion, reading and assessing my position, I don't have any good reason to believe that God exists. Now this may change, and you're right, I don't have any "motivation to believe, maybe someday I will, under what circumstances? Who knows?
"I remember fighting God and telling him I hate him because he doesn't exist. "
I'm a little confused here, you said that "he doesn't exist" meaning you believe that he didn't exist? Because it seemed that you believed in him enough to still be fighting with him.
"We have a lot of searching to do. We have a lot of purification we have to go through. I hope that you can take some time to be "foolish" and accept the possibility of God" I agree with that I still have a TON of searching and learning to do, though, at least for me, belief isn't a choice in the sense that "I'm going to believe in God now". I can choose to look for reasons to believe in things, like believing in God, but so far I've found no good reasons or reasons that are convincing to me. Does that make sense?
"You are not any more foolish, cunning or satanic then anyone here" Thank you! You're a breath of fresh air!
"Good Luck, my struggling brother Gabe. I know this may mean nothing to you yet, and you may laugh at this, but I will keep you in my prayers and we will ask God to reveal Himself to us unworthy fools."
Thank you, and I very much appreciate the thought :)
Remnkemi,
"It was a means for people with financial difficulty to work and subject themselves and their families for food and lodging. It can be interpreted as a benevolent solution to financial disaster. "
Again, I don't think it is ethical under any circumstance to own other people especially with the permission to beat them to death (Exodus 21:20) , keep their wife and kids if they chose to leave their master (Exodus 21:4) or have their ear drilled through a door and serve his master forever if he choses to stay with his family (Exodus 21:6). I"m pretty sure that God could have come up with a better alternative.
Whether voluntary or not ( especially under these conditions) this is 'type' of slavery is just as morally reprehensible.
"Slavery in colonial United States and Europe was involuntary and subjected coercion fueled by racism and immorality. The slaves were not only coerced into forced labor but they were seen as non-humans with no legal equality. This is not how God worked in the Old Testament. Don't confuse the two."
Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites.
"If you had an inalienable right to choose life, then there would be no death since no rational human being would choose death."
Sorry I mean unalienable.
"Moreover, what agenda? It amazes me that I can't post anything without someone accusing me of manipulation "
"I will be the first to apologize for starting the accusations. I can see you're trying to be honest. However, if someone insists on a mistake or insists on sinning and tries to convince others that he is right, then the only natural reaction is skepticism. If this is not the case, and only God knows the heart of men, then accept my apology. If the skepticism is warranted, then examine yourself and make your own decision on what to do."
"Ioannes,
I asked Gabriel the same question last month. This was his answer.
Read the thread and see for yourselves. The only reason for an atheist to come to this site or any church service without changing their beliefs is not truth. There are other ulterior motives. As I stated, the atheist comes to sites like this to plant doubt in our own faith, not seek the truth. And that thread showed how easy it is for us to get sucked into false logic."
Not only are you dishonest, but you are as fickle as they come.
Peter A,
I appreciate that you think you're acting in such a way that is loving toward me, but you don't know me as a person and by your concession your love is a 'responsibility and a commandment', not a result of knowing and appreciating who I am as a person. While this may be peripheral to this discussion, I think in some ways its important address as its essentially the reason why you feel the need to tell me things you know I disagree with and things I've probably already heard a million times.
"But to support you in what you do, this is not love from a Christian perceptive" I don't know what you mean by 'what I do', regardless I have never asked you or anyone else to 'support me' or have ever expected any of you to. I came out and said 'this is' me, you can accept me as a person without agreeing or condoning my opinions or what ever it is 'i do'. i think thats almost the crux of unconditional love, right?
I don't agree with how you've defined "love" for atheists.
"I know that no amount of truth can tame foolishness." I don't know what you mean by 'tame foolishness'. I don't see where I've been foolish, again please cite what foolish thing I have said or done, and we can address it together.
"You aren't truly happy, and you aren't truly content regardless of what you think. but echoing scripture as it tells us, there's no joy apart from God. You may have convinced yourself you are, and that's fine, but sooner or later it'll catch up with you. And your heart which yearns for its creator will dig a deep crevice in your soul. I say this because I love you. Yes, here's that word again."
Statements like this essentially reinforce my non-belief in the validity of scripture. Firstly what does 'truly happy/content even mean'? Because I know Christians who aren't happy in the every day sense, who experience depression and anxiety and who see counsellors, and some even take medication. Are you going to tell me that they aren't really Christians?
My heart/emotions don't yearn for a creator, and I would know this because I'm me.
"True love seeks to correct and to save, not to appease unto destruction" If you're doing it because someone tells you to, its not love.
Ioannes,
I find that my purpose in church is to engage in discussions with people (some of whom are my friends) on issues that may be important to the coptic community which I'm heavily involved in. Through discussion I think we can learn things from each other and maybe change our minds about certain issues, yes including me. Furthermore, there have been many times where my objections, and questions where going through the minds of those also in those meetings/forums. Not only that but my Coptic Orthodox friends encourage me, as well as priests, pretty much whenever they can, to go to church and engage in these discussions and other church activities, knowing full well that I'm an atheist. I don't go there to change people's opinions or minds, sometimes I actually agree with what people say, and as with any regular situation in a forum or meeting, sometimes I don't agree with what people are say.
"However I have dealt with atheists at my church and have warned them when they mocked the church that if they did it again I would tell them to leave, if they did not, then I would physically remove them from the church."
OK? Good for you. I don't see how thats relevant.
"Church is a place that we celebrate the liturgy, that we work on our salvation, that we receive the body and blood of Christ."
No, not exclusively. There are discussions that go on in church, there are church fetes to raise money for causes, some churches go out and feed the poor, some churches put on camps to break the ice between people so as to create more of a fellowship between the youth of the church, (sometimes they do this at the church), some churches hold trivia nights and sport carnivals. I don't know what your church is like, but 'the liturgy' not the sole function of the churches here in Australia.
"I have no problem with you staying, but if you open your mouth and speak against the church, I hope that someone is there to shut it. I dont dislike you and I am not advocating violence, but I am not stupid, I know what you are doing."
You come across, like some other people here on this forum, as very paranoid and somewhat xenophobic.
What am I doing and what should I be 'stopping'? I really don't know what you're accusing me of.
Let me clarify "Fighting Him because he doesn't exist." I do, did, and hopefully, always will believe He exists, I just went through some doubt, and I was angry that he hid His face from me.
Liturgical services are for people of the same faith worshipping with One Spirit.
Gabe is a heretic, according to the Church, and should not be welcomed in the Church liturgical services as a REGULAR member. Neither should he be allowed to mingle with her children socially or otherwise for he is a tool in the devil's hand that is used to destroy the flock.
This is very true if he has made up his mind regarding his beliefs and is not coming to the church to seek her teaching.
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=9818.msg150308#msg150308 Remnkemi, Again, I don't think it is ethical under any circumstance to own other people especially with the permission to beat them to death (Exodus 21:20) , keep their wife and kids if they chose to leave their master (Exodus 21:4) or have their ear drilled through a door and serve his master forever if he choses to stay with his family (Exodus 21:6). I"m pretty sure that God could have come up with a better alternative. How typical it is for you to quote the Bible when you want to prove God is evil but refuse to acknowledge all the other Biblical verses that show how benevolent God is. Your debating rhetoric is weak. I already gave an answer to your supposition that God is not allowed to be unethical. But I'm sure you didn't read the book of Job or my response. Like everything else, you take Biblical quotations and interpret them in the exact opposite of their context. Exodus 21:20 condemns the master who beats the servant to death, not condone it. Exodus 21:4, like any other property contract, specifies ownership under conditions. It doesn't devalue the slave or the slaves wife and children since they were already considered property. Exodus 21:6 is a commandment for the free slave who wishes to remain a slave to his master to give an outwardly sign. It was a voluntary mark, like a tatoo, not a criminal act of assault and battery as you suggest.
Finally, what do you care if God is or isn't capable to find a better alternative solution to financial disaster? God doesn't even exist for you. I can't see why you are going out of your way to show God is unethical if God doesn't exist. Do you spend any energy arguing an imaginary chair or a table is ethical? Since you are spending all this energy proving a supposedly fictitous God is unethical, you either believe in God or you just want us to deny our faith. Which goes back to ulterior motives.
Whether voluntary or not ( especially under these conditions) this is 'type' of slavery is just as morally reprehensible.
Obviously, your definition of this "type" of slavery is wrong. I don't need to go any farther.
Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites.
None of this is in the Bible. Leviticus 25 talks about the Jubilee, "Freedom in the land". The chapter is about freedom. "You must not cheat each other. You must honor your God. I am the Lord your God" Lev 25:17. In the end of the chapter, it talks about rules of slavery in the other 49 years (non-Jubilee years). And if God forbids a brother to take his brother as a slave, you can consider that favoritism. Most people will agree but it is healthy favoritism. Just like when God says, "You are my people and I am your God." It is healthy favoritism. Stop taking verses out of context when you don't want to understand who God is and how He operates.
"If you had an inalienable right to choose life, then there would be no death since no rational human being would choose death."
Sorry I mean unalienable.
In all online dictionaries (Dictionary.com, World English Dictionary, etc) unalienable is a variant of inalienable. Instead of distracting the argument on grammar, don't avoid my response. You don't have any absolute right to choose life. Therefore you don't have any unalianble (or inalienable) right over God, death and many, many other things.
"Ioannes,
I asked Gabriel the same question last month. This was his answer.
Read the thread and see for yourselves. The only reason for an atheist to come to this site or any church service without changing their beliefs is not truth. There are other ulterior motives. As I stated, the atheist comes to sites like this to plant doubt in our own faith, not seek the truth. And that thread showed how easy it is for us to get sucked into false logic."
Not only are you dishonest, but you are as fickle as they come.
How am I dishonest Gabe? Did I not give the link to the thread where you said these things? Call me whatever you want. I don't care. You can deny your ulterior motives all you want. Your denial of truth makes you a thousand times more fickle than I will ever be. If you had any truth or real intelligence, you would honestly discuss the argument, not attack the person making the argument.
I don't agree with how you've defined "love" for atheists.
"I know that no amount of truth can tame foolishness." I don't know what you mean by 'tame foolishness'. I don't see where I've been foolish, again please cite what foolish thing I have said or done, and we can address it together.
I've given you many examples of your foolish arguments. And I cited them again. If you really want to address foolish arguments, you would repent from denying God. But you have no interest in discussing your foolish arguments. You only want people to people to deny their faith. Which is exactly what the devil does.
Statements like this essentially reinforce my non-belief in the validity of scripture. Firstly what does 'truly happy/content even mean'? Because I know Christians who aren't happy in the every day sense, who experience depression and anxiety and who see counsellors, and some even take medication. Are you going to tell me that they aren't really Christians?
And how many atheist are depressed? Correlating belief in God and validity of Scriptures with depression is a weak argument. If you really believe in scientific method, then you can't deny the overwhelming research in psychology that shows people who are religious (not just outwardly) are happier. Read the Happiness Hypothesis.
My heart/emotions don't yearn for a creator, and I would know this because I'm me.
A child who doesn't yearn for his parent and even disowns the parent cannot deny his parent exists and justify this belief by self-justification only. Self-justification is limited to self-knowledge. If self-justification is the only justification you have then your creator can exist without you knowing or wanting it.
No, not exclusively. There are discussions that go on in church, there are church fetes to raise money for causes, some churches go out and feed the poor, some churches put on camps to break the ice between people so as to create more of a fellowship between the youth of the church, (sometimes they do this at the church), some churches hold trivia nights and sport carnivals. I don't know what your church is like, but 'the liturgy' not the sole function of the churches here in Australia.
The same argument was discussed in the other thread. You can call a hospital a business with many other purposes than medicine. But it's sole primary purpose is to gather doctors and sick patients to heal. All other secondary purposes are coincidental. And if anyone continues to come to a hospital for secondary purposes only, they will be discouraged and possibly forcefully removed.
You come across, like some other people here on this forum, as very paranoid and somewhat xenophobic.
You call it paranoia and xenophobia, I call it obedience to God, the Orthodox Church and the scriptures. "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" 2 Cor 6:14-15 and "Therefore Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “ I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17. I can go on. But you don't believe or understand the Scriptures and then turn around and question us for our belief or how we view atheists and unbelievers. How foolish!
Where did I say I was trying to prove God to be evil? The biblical versus I cited were a response to the comment "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights. " I expressed my confusion in, how is it that without God there could have been no human dignity and human rights, if in the bible he instructed people to encroach upon them? i.e. was that necissary? It seems that you can't even respond with in the context of this discussion.
Exodus 21:20" condemns the master who beats the servant to death, not condone it"
I probably should have added verse 21, unless of course you have selective reading. Here are both versus:
"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."
"It doesn't devalue the slave or the slaves wife and children since they were already considered property"
How does that even matter? Of course it devalues, not only the slave but his family. Someone is owning your wife and kids. And the only way to stay with them is to have a hole drilled through your ear, and then become that masters slave forever. LOL Yes it was volutnary to want to remain with your wife and kids, and hence it didn't devalue that human being..
Furthermore, who cares what type of slavery it is, its still slavery where people are owned and where people can beat their property to death and not be legally held responsible, and they can also hold people's family ransom so that they can gain permanent servitude.
"Most people will agree but it is healthy favoritism"
LOL yes the Israelites can be enslaved only up to 6 years and everyone else gets to be enslaved for the rest of their lives! Yes, very healthy.
In regards to inaliable/unalienable rights I wasn't referring to the power to chose life under any circumstance, I was referring to the right that should not be encroached upon by other people e.g.I have the right to live therefore you shouldn't just come to my house one day and shoot me in the head. I think it can be found in the US constitution under 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
Its scary that I have to walk you through this...I regard you dishonest and fickle because even after you said that "you could see I was trying to be honest", and I should accept your apology if I had no ulterior motives, though even if skeptisism was warranted then i should "examine myself and make your own decision on what to do. Though you retract this, it would seem, purely on the basis of Ioannes asking "what is your purpose here Gabriel". Why apologise, if you didn't even care what my response was? This is called being fickle my friend.
And this is certainly where the irony and hypocrisy becomes too humorous to bear.
"If you had any truth or real intelligence, you would honestly discuss the argument, not attack the person making the argument. "
I have, in just about every thread on this forum, been accused of ulterior motives, without any justification. The general reason for this is 'oh well we can't think of any reason as to why an atheist would go to church or be in a coptic forum, so therefore he has ulterior motives" even after I've told you why I do go. Now the "reference to my response that you gave Ioannes, that to you I guess clearly demonstrates my ulterior motives, was a logical analogy, that, at the time, I thought clearly demonstrated that the only reason why anyone would go to another place of worship is NOT NECESSARILY to convince people of other beliefs. Sure there is an agenda, but the agenda was, in this case explicitly stated i.e. to educate oneself, to connect with the community, and to even tag along with my coptic friends when asked. However you claim that I haven't come clean about something, which you have not given any justification for.
My accusations of your dishonesty and fickleness, I feel has been justified to a reasonable degree, so they weren't an attack, they were an observation about the way you conducted yourself. If you care to address them and show me that I'm wrong I'll be happy to reasses what I think of you. And if I do decide to retract those accusations, I'll be sure not reinstate them, until of course you give me reason to, though in which case I'll at least give you a opportunity to explain yourself, cause thats just the kind of guy that I am.
"If you really believe in scientific method, then you can't deny the overwhelming research in psychology that shows people who are religious (not just outwardly) are happier."
Religious people doesn't mean christians buddy :)
"If self-justification is the only justification you have then your creator can exist without you knowing or wanting it. "
I agree, but thats not what i said, I said I don't yearn for a creator. I didn't say that therefore there is no creator. What that does mean though, is that peter's statement that i do yearn for "my creator" is false.
"And if anyone continues to come to a hospital for secondary purposes only, they will be discouraged and possibly forcefully removed. "
I have never been discouraged or "forcibly" removed. In fact I continually get encouraged to come back, and even get a text or a friend who asks me "where I've been?". And how would you know if people are coming for secondary purposes? You do know that there is a social aspect to the church right? People could be going through the motions in church, but are really there to see friends, and this could be their only reason to go to church. If these people aren't even worthy to be on premises, then maybe you should go around asking people if they are there for the right reason?
"You call it paranoia and xenophobia, I call it obedience to God, the Orthodox Church and the scriptures. "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" 2 Cor 6:14-15 and "Therefore Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “ I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17. I can go on. But you don't believe or understand the Scriptures and then turn around and question us for our belief or how we view atheists and unbelievers. How foolish"
Well I was being instructed to "stop it", and I have no idea what "it" is and there was no explanation, and considering the context, it made no sense. Hence the impression of paranoia and to some degree unintelligibility. lol You do know that Belial is a demon, right? So you just like to insert words like "atheist" to change the meaning of scripture to what you want it to mean?(unless of course you equate people who are atheists with something demonic) But you do know that Jesus was friends with sinners? and you do know that churches go out and feed the poor, some of whom are not christians, some are atheists and ex-criminals, alcoholics and drug users and probably people of other religions (!!), whom they actually befriend and see on a weekly basis? But maybe your right, then I guess you have permission to accuse unbelievers of being lawless and likened to demons, and you can safely stay in your bubble with like minded people.
I did say "I wont engage in any further discussion with you until I see that you can address an accurate representation of what I'm saying", I clearly forgot what i said, but these points I think would have come up anyway...
Gabriel, I think I have proven my point here. You are only causing debate, as I would if I joined an online atheist forum. What am I accusing you of? Causing problems, as evidenced in this thread. You cause arguments on a site made for Orthodox Christians, not atheists. It would probably be different if you were an atheist who was interested in converting or whatever. What is your purpose here?
You say you are "heavily involved" in the church. Why? It is not a social club. It is a perfect place for imperfect people to attain salvation. You mention non-spiritual things as if that somehow justifies you being in the church. What would you think if a Christian became "heavily involved" in an atheist group? I am sure you would throw around those same insults, or level even heavier accusations against them.
If you wish to insult me that is fine, you are just showing to everyone what your real purpose is here. It is my hope that you be banned from this site, and hopefully banned from the church all together. You are not Orthodox nor Coptic in any way shape or form. You have no business in the church and should be thrown out for sowing seeds of doubt amongst the congregation. Paranoid? Your defensiveness against my questioning you only reveals the truth in your motives. Your actions are disgusting.
"What am I accusing you of? Causing problems, as evidenced in this thread. "
Did you read my first post here in this thread? I actually posted in this thread to respond to what someone had written that was relevant to the topic at hand. It was Peter A who then decided to begin accusing me of an agenda, then remenkemi, then you. You three have completely hijacked this thread and made it about me, I am also at fault here because I was stupid enough to engage. But if someone was attacking your integrity I'm sure you would have responded in the same way.
"You say you are "heavily involved" in the church. Why? It is not a social club."
I've already explained this.
"What would you think if a Christian became "heavily involved" in an atheist group? I am sure you would throw around those same insults, or level even heavier accusations against them. "
No I wouldn't, I'm very happy to say that I don't jump to conclusions nor do I find 'throwing insults' or 'accusations' useful or edifying to anyone, and to be honest I don't like ganging up on people nor offending others.
"If you wish to insult me that is fine, you are just showing to everyone what your real purpose is here."
Where have I insulted you?
"You are not Orthodox nor Coptic in any way shape or form. You have no business in the church and should be thrown out for sowing seeds of doubt amongst the congregation. Paranoid? Your defensiveness against my questioning you only reveals the truth in your motives. Your actions are disgusting."
My defensiveness is backed up with reason and actual justification. Your offensiveness is not, you haven't demonstrated in any way that I have ulterior motives, yet you tell me to 'stop it' (stop what?) now you're telling me I'm sowing doubt, which you haven't demonstrated but yet again only accused me of. And now whatever it is I'm doing is disgusting. The 'paranoid' vibes I'm getting from you are very much justified and not intended as an insult, but rather an observation.
I think this conversation has gone on long enough, if you wish to accuse me of anything please private message me, so that we don't de-rail other peoples discussion. Here's my contact details you can email me or call me and we can discuss, or you can have your priest/bishop email me or call me, If you want me banned from church altogether, because I'm such a destructive force, then place your efforts where they'll be more effective.
Generally if more than one person levels an accusation against you, you should examine yourself. Your very being here is an ulterior motive. What purpose could you possibly have other than sowing seeds of doubt amongst people of this site you are predominantly youth?
There is no purpose for you here, let alone in an actual church! We love our church and have enough to deal with. We do not need a self deluded and insecure atheist seeking converts on our website OR in our church. Your very being here, as I have already says, shows that you have some ulterior motives. It would be the same thing if I were to join an atheist forum, what purpose could I possibly serve there? Ahhh to prostelytize.
Enough people have accused you of this that you should probably take a step back and examine yourself, a common Orthodox practice. OR you could just leave and stop causing problems.
Unlike PeterA, I am against you posting on this site.
I know that all you do is debate at church. I know you question the authenticity of scripture. All you want to do is debate there, so I know what you want to do here.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=9818.msg150341#msg150341 date=1326418997] Where did I say I was trying to prove God to be evil? You tried to prove God was unethical by allowing slavery. An unethical God is by definition evil. Therefore, you were directly trying to prove God unethical and indirectly trying to prove God was evil. We can play this game as long as you want, Gabe. Your foolishness is clearly evident.
The biblical versus I cited were a response to the comment "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights. " I expressed my confusion in, how is it that without God there could have been no human dignity and human rights, if in the bible he instructed people to encroach upon them? i.e. was that necissary? It seems that you can't even respond with in the context of this discussion.
Since you claimed you were already confused, let me clarify it for you. Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion?
Exodus 21:20" condemns the master who beats the servant to death, not condone it"
I probably should have added verse 21, unless of course you have selective reading. Here are both versus:
"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."
I would explain it to you, but you have selective hearing since I already explained it. You think one verse proves God is unethical while ignoring the hundreds of verses which show God's benevolence. I'm not going to dignify your foolish attempt at using the Bible for your atheism. Why are you deflecting my question? Could it be because you have selective hearing? Why do you care if God is ethical if you don't believe in God?
Furthermore, who cares what type of slavery it is, its still slavery where people are owned
I am owned by my wife and by my Savior who purchased me with His blood. It is slavery. It is voluntary. And it matters that there is a difference in types of slavery that you refuse to acknowledge.
LOL yes the Israelites can be enslaved only up to 6 years and everyone else gets to be enslaved for the rest of their lives! Yes, very healthy.
You continue to twist the Bible out of context. I can argue with you how your facts about slavery in the Old Testament is wrong but it doesn't matter. You continue to twist information for your selective hearing. Or as you called it "standard of evidence"
In regards to inaliable/unalienable rights I wasn't referring to the power to chose life under any circumstance, I was referring to the right that should not be encroached upon by other people e.g.I have the right to live therefore you shouldn't just come to my house one day and shoot me in the head. I think it can be found in the US constitution under 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
Again wrong. If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment. You loose the right to live, according to the law, under certain circumstances. The government will come to your house and eventually take away your life.
Its scary that I have to walk you through this...I regard you dishonest and fickle because even after you said that "you could see I was trying to be honest", and I should accept your apology if I had no ulterior motives, though even if skeptisism was warranted then i should "examine myself and make your own decision on what to do. Though you retract this, it would seem, purely on the basis of Ioannes asking "what is your purpose here Gabriel". Why apologise, if you didn't even care what my response was? This is called being fickle my friend.
Let me make it clear it for you. IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives. And it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest. Don't call me your friend.
I have, in just about every thread on this forum, been accused of ulterior motives, without any justification.
There has been plenty of justification. It is obvious you do not want to believe in God and you insist that you are only seeking to educate yourself. You've been told over and over that atheism is evil. You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you.
My accusations of your dishonesty and fickleness, I feel has been justified to a reasonable degree, so they weren't an attack, they were an observation about the way you conducted yourself. If you care to address them and show me that I'm wrong I'll be happy to reasses what I think of you.
I do not care one bit what you think of me. As long as you continue to believe in atheism, nihilism, agnosticism or anything against the Orthodox faith, you have no credibility. No one cares to appease the uncredible. I don't care if you give me the opportunity to explain myself. I don't care how nice of a guy you are or how you nice you want people to see you if you continue to deny the Orthodox faith.
"If you really believe in scientific method, then you can't deny the overwhelming research in psychology that shows people who are religious (not just outwardly) are happier."
Religious people doesn't mean christians buddy :)
Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method.
I have never been discouraged or "forcibly" removed. In fact I continually get encouraged to come back, and even get a text or a friend who asks me "where I've been?".
That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club. Any true Christian who believes in the Gospel that the Orthodox Church has received will not associate with unbelievers in Church.
You do know that there is a social aspect to the church right? People could be going through the motions in church, but are really there to see friends, and this could be their only reason to go to church.
Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit.
If these people aren't even worthy to be on premises, then maybe you should go around asking people if they are there for the right reason?
Again if you actually cared about your salvation, you would acknowledge St Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 11:26-29.
Well I was being instructed to "stop it", and I have no idea what "it" is and there was no explanation, and considering the context, it made no sense. Hence the impression of paranoia and to some degree unintelligibility.
First you say you had no idea what it is when it was clearly defined by Ioannes. And then you turn around and accuse the other of unintelligibility. Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one.
lol You do know that Belial is a demon, right? So you just like to insert words like "atheist" to change the meaning of scripture to what you want it to mean?(unless of course you equate people who are atheists with something demonic)
But you do know that Jesus was friends with sinners?
He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception.
and you do know that churches go out and feed the poor, some of whom are not christians, some are atheists and ex-criminals, alcoholics and drug users and probably people of other religions (!!), whom they actually befriend and see on a weekly basis?
There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40.
But maybe your right, then I guess you have permission to accuse unbelievers of being lawless and likened to demons, and you can safely stay in your bubble with like minded people.
The authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ.
Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong.
believe it or not I have reflected on what you've said, well at least the first few times i've been accused of having ulterior motives. I've concluded that I have no ulterior motives and these accusations are a result of my position on certain issues and the way I represent them, I think. I obviously give off vibes that set people's alarms off. Furthermore, your statement that "I have no purpose here or in any church" is a mere opinion, which you're entitled to, just know that as far as opinions go, not only is it unsolicited but its divisive and not helpful to anyone.
Ioannes, debating is not ALL that I do at church (and i'm not sure how you claim to know this). I actually strive to engage in useful discussion with people, and sure I challenge people's beliefs and scripture but I do try to do so with respect of the people around me and the place I'm in. I don't sneakily try to plant seeds of doubt in people, actually I'm very upfront about my position on issues pertaining to religion and sexuality, and a lot of things, and a LOT op people know this. In fact the coptic church here provides an open forum to discuss the existence of God, where atheists and free thinkers are invited to discuss with Copts about these philosophical topics. So if there was a perfect opportunity to 'sow doubt' it would be on those nights, but because some people are not afraid to discuss these things openly, we can actually bring our doubts to the table and address them.
Peter A,
I didn't have the intention to provoke, I intended to generate discussion, which I think could have happened if you didn't jump to conclusions based on assumptions. I highlighted words to emphasise not to insinuate.
"You are pro homosexual reform. You don't believe in God. What responses did you expect from a Coptic Orthodox forum?"
I didn't expect much, but i thought through some rational discussion I could actually contribute or instigate useful discussions. I suppose you're not the only one operating under assumptions.
"They must know something we don't. They must see goodness in you, hope, a willingness to participate without discreetly introducing your thoughts. I'm on the fence as to whether you can stay or not. "
Peter I think this is the crux of the matter, no one here actually knows me, they see one side of me (which I probably don't present very well anyway) and people jump to conclusions about my entire character. Sure, for some it may appear that I give them reason to jump to certain conclusions because of the things I talk about and my position on certain issues and the way I talk about them, but I have never told anyone how to think about a certain issue. I often give reasons as to why I believe/don't believe certain things, and I also appraise people's arguments that I feel don't make sense to me. And thats just the nature of online forums, we only see a small part of each other and we all make assumptions, and pass judgements about the people we're talking to. I just think we pass harsher judgements toward people we don't agree with.
Remnkemi,
I wasn't trying to prove anything, yes i was challenging a claim, but it was to incite discussion. And really, I can't say anything else that could possibly add anymore merit to this. Take it or leave it dude.
"Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion?"
Yes with in context but still does not address my confusion as to how an omni-benevolent God could allow slavery under the conditions in the old testament.
"Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites."
"None of this is in the Bible.."
Was this your explanation? Cause clearly what I was refering to is in the bible (Exodus 21:20-21) and then you go onto say 'this chapter is about the jubilee' and that ' not enslaving your brothers is healthy favouritism'. What did I miss?
"If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment."
Ok so the original point I was in response to Peter A's comment that 'our only right is to led to repentance', let me use another example to demonstrate at least in a fair legal system would show that I have other rights as a human being, ok so for example, a right to a fair trial or a right to defend myself when I'm in danger.
"Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method. "
I have no interest in discussing the scientific method, as its not relevant. Someone made the universal claim that ' People cannot be truly happy unless they have God in their lives' I said that some Christians, that I know aren't actually happy (at least not happy in the everyday sense) which in turn undermined/contradicted the claim (look up the word contrary). Giving me an experiment that demonstrates that religious people are happier does no favours for the original claim, since religious could mean 'Buddhist, hindu, islam, new age' which contain different or no gods. Therefore this experiment that you are referring to is essentially irrelevant.
"IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives."
I see how this works now, if Ioannes says someone has an ulterior motive then you jump on the band wagon.
"it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest"
What evidence? and dishonest about what?
"It is obvious you do not want to believe in God "
No, actually i am open to the existence of God, if you bothered to push away the assumptions you are operating under and actually read what I've said countless times, I have found no good reason to believe in God, there may be one out there, but till I come across it I therefore have no reason to accept the claim that 'God or any God, exists.'
"You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
No i haven't been educated, actually I clearly haven't had the opportunity to, where you could have spent this time actually edifying me you have wasted it making accusations that you still have not given any good reason for, at least not to me.
Furthermore, unlike you (seemingly) I don't only speak with people I agree with, I like to have discussions with people who have a different perspective on life I get to learn more about the people and the world, I even sometimes get to learn about myself.
And where have i ever said that I subscribe to nihilism? Thats another assumption. I'm not a nihilist. Just because I don't believe in an afterlife or a god that doesn't mean I therefore think life is without purpose or meaning.
"..Arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
I have nerver argued on this site that God doesn't exist, I've explicitly expressed my non belief. I don't think Christians are hypocritical I think some christians are hypocritical, and I probably should have used the word 'sound' not valid, as I'll admit there are many valid or good things in the bible. And all i meant to imply was that there are some claims in the bible, or at least claims that have been interpreted in a certain way that are contradicted by reality.
"That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club."
You're wrong, considering some of my friends are in fact priests. How could you actually make a claim to knowledge like this without actually knowing my friends? More assumptions and more judgements.
"Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit. "
I wasn't talking about my friends champ. There is a social aspect to church, well at least some churches. People go they see friends, and they may equally be there for what ever service is on and the people there.
"Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one." Yep ok, i'm unintelligible.
"And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)?
" I already said Atheism is demonic. "
Ok you think I'm demonic, thanks for your opinion, as unsolicited as it maybe.
"He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception."
So when its commanded in the bible to love your neighbours as yourselves, what do you think the world 'love' means there? Or neighbour actually?
"There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40. "
Oh ok well you better let these missionaries know that they are befriending lawless people and that they are going against scripture!
"the authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ. "
And Jesus also said to be 'as wise as serpents' and considering the amount of assumptions you've operated under, you've done the exact opposite.
"Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong."
I've never insisted that atheism logical, i have given reasons as to why I don't believe in God. People can claim to be atheists for completely illogical reasons, I however have given fairly logical reasons to justify my non belief. I haven't insisted that you tolerate 'atheism' i have insisted that you tolerate atheists, nor have claimed that Christians are unintelligible, I may have said that of one person, but I never then made a judgement call of every christian.
Oh I have no doubt that you can keep this up I just don't think I have the time or the patience to keep correcting you.
[quote=Titus 3:10-11] Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
Comments
Getting into science does not resolve the issues of faith and atheism. It's just a distraction from the arguments that SHOULD be discussed when dealing with atheism. So, scientific debates aside, the central problem with atheism is a lack of sufficient arguments to support human dignity. Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights.
For the benefit of people in the Orthodox faith, I'm going to quote here a small section of the Roman Catholic Church's Vatican II constitution called Gaudium et Spes, published on 7 Dec. 1965, which the Orthodox Church would also agree with, and which would help illuminate the necessity of faith for a correct understanding and moral application of human dignity:
Chapter I:20, 21:
"Modern atheism often takes a systematic form. There are a number of reasons for this, among them an insistence on human autonomy so great as to put obstacles on the way of any degree of dependence on God. For those who profess atheism of this kind, freedom means that humanity constitutes its own end and it the sole maker, in total control, of its own history. They claim that this outlook cannot be reconciled with the assertion of a Lord who is author and end of all things, or that at least it makes such an affirmation altogether unnecessary. The sense of power which modern technical progress produces in people may encourage this outlook.
"One form of modern atheism which should not be ignored is that which looks to people's economic and social emancipation for their liberation. It holds that religion, of its very nature, frustrates such emancipation by investing people's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving them and discouraging them from working for a better form of life on earth. That us why those who hold such views, wherever they gain control of the state, violently attack religion, and in order to spread atheism, especially in the education of young people, make use of all the means by which civil authority can bring pressure to bear on its subjects.
"The church, faithful to its obligations both to God and humanity, cannot cease, as in the past, to deplore, sadly yet with the utmost firmness, those harmful teachings and ways of acting which are in conflict with reason and with common human experience, and which cast humanity down from the noble state to which it is born. It tries nevertheless to seek out the secret motives which lead the atheistic mind to deny God. Well knowing how important the problems raised by atheism, and urged by its love for everyone it considers that these motives deserve an earnest and more thorough scrutiny.
"The church holds that to acknowledge God is in no way to diminish human dignity, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. Women and men have in fact been placed in the world by God, who created them as intelligent and free beings; but over and above this they are called as daughters and sons to intimacy with God and to share in his happiness. It further teaches that hope in a life to come does not take away from the importance of the duties of this life on earth but rather adds to it by giving new motives for fulfilling those duties. When, on the other hand, people are deprived of this divine support and without hope of eternal life their dignity is deeply impaired, as may so often be seen today. The problems of life and death, of guilt and of suffering, remain unsolved, so that people are frequently thrown into despair.
"Meanwhile, everybody remains a question to themselves, one that is dimly perceived and left unanswered. For there are times, especially in the major events of life, when nobody can altogether escape from such self-questioning. God alone, who calls people to deeper thought and to more humble probing, can fully and with complete certainty supply an answer to this questioning.
"Atheism must be countered both by properly presenting true teaching and by the full and complete life of the church and of its members. For it is the function of the church to render God the Father and his incarnate Son present and as it were visible, while ceaselessly renewing and purifying itself under the guidance of the holy Spirit. This is brought about chiefly by the witness of a living and mature faith, one namely that is so well formed that it can see difficulties clearly and overcome them. Many martyrs have borne, and continue to bear, a splendid witness to this faith. This faith should show its fruitfulness by penetrating the entire life, even the worldly activities, of those who believe, and by urging them to be loving and just, especially towards those in need. Lastly, what does most to show God's presence clearly is the familial love of the faithful who, being all of one mind and spirit, work together for the faith of the Gospel and present themselves as a sign of unity.
"Although the church altogether rejects atheism, it nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men and women, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent. The church therefore deplores the discrimination between believers and unbelievers which some civil authorities unjustly practice, in defiance of the fundamental rights of the human person. It demands effective freedom for the faithful to be allowed to build up God's temple in this world also. It courteously invited atheists to weigh the merits of the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.
"For the church knows full well that its message is in harmony with the most secret desired of the human heart, since it champions the dignity of humanity's calling, giving hope once more to those who already despair of their higher destiny. Its message, far from diminishing humanity, helps people to develop themselves by bestowing light, life, and freedom. Apart from this message nothing is able to satisfy the human heart: 'You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rest in you.' (St. Augustine's Confessions, I:1)."
Chapter IV:41:
"Contemporary women and men are in process of developing their personality and of increasingly discovering and affirming their rights. The church is entrusted with the task of manifesting to them the mystery of God, who is their final destiny; in doing so it discloses to them the meaning of their own existence, the innermost truth about themselves. The church knows well that God alone, whom it serves, can satisfy the deepest cravings of the human heart, for it can never be fully content with the world and what it has to offer. The church also realizes that men and women are continually being aroused by the Spirit of God and that they will never be utterly indifferent to religion -- a fact confirmed by the experience of past ages and by a variety of evidence today. For people will always be keen to know, if only in a general way, what is the meaning of their life, their activity, their death. The very presence of the church recalls these problems to their minds. The most perfect answer to these questions is to be found in God alone, who created women and men in his own image and redeemed them from sin; and this answer is given in the revelation in Christ his Son who became man. To follow Christ the perfect human is to become more human oneself.
"By this faith the church can keep the dignity of human nature out of the reach of the changing opinions which, for example, either devalue the human body or glorify it. There is no human law so well fitted to safeguard the personal dignity and human freedom as is the Gospel which Christ entrusted to the church; for the Gospel announces and proclaims the freedom of the daughters and sons of God, it rejects all bondage resulting from sin, it scrupulously respects the dignity of conscience and its freedom of choice, it never ceases to encourage the employment of human talents in the service of God and humanity, and, finally, it commends everyone to the charity of all. This is nothing other than the basic law of the christian dispensation. The fact that it is the same God who is at once saviour and creator, Lord of human history and of the history of salvation, does not mean that this divine order deprives creation, and humanity in particular, of their rightful autonomy; on the contrary, it restores and strengthens its dignity.
"In virtue of the Gospel entrusted to it, the church proclaims human rights; it acknowledges and holds in high esteem the dynamic approach of today which is fostering these rights all over the world. But this approach needs to be animated by the spirit of the Gospel and preserved from all traces of false autonomy. For there is a temptation to feel that our personal rights are fully maintained only when we are free from every restriction of divine law. But this is the way leading to the extinction of human dignity, not its preservation."
leviticus 25:44-46
And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying....."as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves."
when they brought a complaint against me;
what then shall I do when God rises up?
When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?
Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
And did not one fashion us in the womb?"
(Job 31:13-15)
lol yes in this verse Job seems to recognises that all people are equal, can't say much for God in Leviticus. If "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights" then why give people permission to encroach upon them in the first place? Is God a moral relativist? Because a lot of responses I seem to get is, "well thats just how people operated those days, and God just gave them instructions they could work with.." I personally don't think slavery is moral under any circumstance or for any reason, and being omnipotent/omni-benevolent God did not have 'bend to the context of the culture'.
Thoughts?
Peter A,
there's no sense of self worth when you're owned by another person. And I completely disagree with the claim that "our only God given right is the right to repent". For the most part because I don't believe in God and even if I did, I would also believe that we have inalienable rights, such as the right to chose life when one wants to live.
I really don't remember when I "admitted" that I was 'wise' or that I chose a road to satisfy my body and mind. If I did please show it to me and I'll happily address it. Because As it stands none of these things are true.
Moreover, what agenda? It amazes me that I can't post anything without someone accusing me of manipulation even after being completely honest about who I am and my interests (which happens to consist of these discussions), then have the hide to tell others not to judge me, and then say 'we love you'.
First off, I would like to take a stab at the tittle of this thread. Atheists and Coptic Orthodoxy have no need to clash at each other.Its not Atheist VS Coptic Orthodox. The greatest atheist and the holiest monk are still brothers, and need to show love. If it is a competition of who is right, the atheist will never be caused to see God. In the end, the greatest apologist and the greatest atheist come down to a stalemate of, "it is possible, but I choose to believe...."
Gabe, I myself have been and am, and will probably continue struggling with the battle against internal atheism. It is such a compelling ideology because it is easy to see things so materialistically. The bible in essence can be broken down by people such as Hitchens and Dawkins simply because of the tone they use when speaking about it. It is made to seem like foolishness. However, one could do the same with any atheistic literature. I could make the God delusion sound stupid even though it is a decently written book, simply with the tone of voice I use. In an increasingly atheistic world, it is difficult to maintain a theistic worldview.
The way I see it, "no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1st Corinthians 12:3) Now before the apologists and atheists jump on me for using a bible verse, I am not trying to prove anything, but I am rather just trying to show the way I think. You understand Chemistry using test tubes, biology using microscopes, and astronomy using telescopes, so I will use the bible to see if there is a God of the Bible, and while this may not work for others, it works for me. Anyway, maybe your atheism (and my extreme doubt at that) is not due to knowledge, but is rather due to us having extinguished the Holy Spirit within us, and that to see God, we need that Holy Spirit. Of course, a Christian calls it the Holy Spirit and an atheist would call it a delusion, but that is about as far as the debate goes.
What I am trying to say is that God has left us complete free will. We are not needed by him. During my period of doubt, I remember fighting God and telling him I hate him because he doesn't exist. Then I talked to my spiritual friends who said to me, "What do you think you are going to do? What are you threatening God with... That you are going to hurt yourself? Don't be foolish." This freedom is a very scary feeling. We can go towards Him or we can forsake him, and in any case, those who ascribe to any side of the argument seem to be correct.
That is why I respect you, Gabe. You are not any more foolish, cunning or satanic then anyone here. In my eyes, it is not atheism that is the first problem that you are dealing with, but a lack of drive to believe. Maybe that could be the first thing fixed? My suggestion is don't give up too easily. "He rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) I plan on looking for God until the day I die, and yes, this will be wearisome, and arid. Maybe he'll make himself known to me.
"Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." (James 4:8) Maybe, Gabe, we have a lot of searching to do. We have a lot of purification we have to go through. I hope that you can take some time to be "foolish" and accept the possibility of God; then you will see that it is not folly at all.
I have rambled on too long.... Good Luck, my struggling brother Gabe. I know this may mean nothing to you yet, and you may laugh at this, but I will keep you in my prayers and we will ask God to reveal Himself to us unworthy fools.
can't say much for God in Leviticus. If "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights" then why give people permission to encroach upon them in the first place?
Maybe the whole book of Job can answer that question for you. Job also questioned God's motives and reasons, not about slavery but about punishment for unknown sins. And Job indicted that God cannot be unjust, punishing someone for sins he does not know he committed. Did God say, "Yes, Job you're right. I have to agree with you." No he spends nearly 1/3 of the book stating "Who is this who speaks without understanding?" Even if God does supposedly encroach upon human rights, it doesn't give the created, narrow limited human mind power or superiority over an uncreated, omniscient and limitless divine mind. This only applies if your definition of slavery is the same as the omnipoten/omni-benevolent God's. The issue was already discussed here. Slavery in the Old Testament was a voluntary action. It was a means for people with financial difficulty to work and subject themselves and their families for food and lodging. It can be interpreted as a benevolent solution to financial disaster.
Slavery in colonial United States and Europe was involuntary and subjected coercion fueled by racism and immorality. The slaves were not only coerced into forced labor but they were seen as non-humans with no legal equality. This is not how God worked in the Old Testament. Don't confuse the two. Wrong. If you had an inalienable right to choose life, then there would be no death since no rational human being would choose death. Yet every human being dies. Therefore, you do not have the absolute right to choose life. You only have a relative right to choose survival in situations you can control. Additionally, without God you have no choice for eternal life. Without the resurrection, death has complete control over you. As all atheist believe, when a person dies they become nothing. At least, the Christian can choose something after death. I will be the first to apologize for starting the accusations. I can see you're trying to be honest. However, if someone insists on a mistake or insists on sinning and tries to convince others that he is right, then the only natural reaction is skepticism. If this is not the case, and only God knows the heart of men, then accept my apology. If the skepticism is warranted, then examine yourself and make your own decision on what to do.
[quote author=Servant of Jesus Christ link=topic=9818.msg121085#msg121085 date=1287625475]
(Correct me if I am wrong) Okay, so if the big bang doesn't exist, than wouldn't the Universe be infinite? Thank you, God bless.
If it were infinite, the sky would all be lighted by an infinite expanse of stars which would be an infinite source of light and the sky never dark. This is called the dark sky paradox. We do know through observation and measurements that everything is expanding and moving apart which suggests everything had a single center point of origin and is expanding outward. I will be the first to point out, that God could have created this expansion from a single point.
With or without the Big Bang theory, we can't prove that the universe is or isn't infinite. All theories rely on assumptions. Olbers' paradox (the dark sky paradox) seems to say the universe isn't infinite. The Big Bang theory was a counter argument of Olbers' paradox to show the universe is infinite. Olbers' paradox relies on the assumption that every layer of the expanding universe has an equal density of stars (isotropic cosmology). Other assumptions include that the human eye (or any light spectrometer) has the ability to view all different types and sizes of stars. Since neither humans nor computers can see an infinite amount of stars, undetected stars will only create backround noise, decreasing illuminosity. Therefore, the sky will appear dark. This assumption directly challenges Olbers' paradox without submitting to the existence of the Big Bang.
I know this seems like a good defense for agnosticism. In reality, it doesn't say anything about an infinite God or an infinite universe. The inability to describe infinity does not negate the existence of infinite beings.
Does this make sense?
I asked Gabriel the same question last month. This was his answer.
Read the thread and see for yourselves. The only reason for an atheist to come to this site or any church service without changing their beliefs is not truth. There are other ulterior motives. As I stated, the atheist comes to sites like this to plant doubt in our own faith, not seek the truth. And that thread showed how easy it is for us to get sucked into false logic.
There is truly no purpose for you being here or in church. You may experience acceptance wherever you attend church, but then again you may act differently there or give the impression that you are interested in converting, or something similar. I do not think anyone would ask you to leave church, in that sense you are allowed to be there, not accepted. However I have dealt with atheists at my church and have warned them when they mocked the church that if they did it again I would tell them to leave, if they did not, then I would physically remove them from the church. Not violently. Church is a place that we celebrate the liturgy, that we work on our salvation, that we receive the body and blood of Christ. In the old days they used to have all unbaptized leave before the bread and wine became the body and blood. I have no problem with you staying, but if you open your mouth and speak against the church, I hope that someone is there to shut it. I dont dislike you and I am not advocating violence, but I am not stupid, I know what you are doing. Its like if I were hanging out in a crackhouse and it got raided, do you really expect the police to believe that "I just like going there"? You have ulterior motives and they are apparent, please stop.
ReturnOrthodoxy,
I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to try understand where I'm coming from. WHile I don't take to atheism because people undermine Christianity with a particular tone, I've found that through discussion, reading and assessing my position, I don't have any good reason to believe that God exists. Now this may change, and you're right, I don't have any "motivation to believe, maybe someday I will, under what circumstances? Who knows?
"I remember fighting God and telling him I hate him because he doesn't exist. "
I'm a little confused here, you said that "he doesn't exist" meaning you believe that he didn't exist? Because it seemed that you believed in him enough to still be fighting with him.
"We have a lot of searching to do. We have a lot of purification we have to go through. I hope that you can take some time to be "foolish" and accept the possibility of God" I agree with that I still have a TON of searching and learning to do, though, at least for me, belief isn't a choice in the sense that "I'm going to believe in God now". I can choose to look for reasons to believe in things, like believing in God, but so far I've found no good reasons or reasons that are convincing to me. Does that make sense?
"You are not any more foolish, cunning or satanic then anyone here" Thank you! You're a breath of fresh air!
"Good Luck, my struggling brother Gabe. I know this may mean nothing to you yet, and you may laugh at this, but I will keep you in my prayers and we will ask God to reveal Himself to us unworthy fools."
Thank you, and I very much appreciate the thought :)
Remnkemi,
"It was a means for people with financial difficulty to work and subject themselves and their families for food and lodging. It can be interpreted as a benevolent solution to financial disaster. "
Again, I don't think it is ethical under any circumstance to own other people especially with the permission to beat them to death (Exodus 21:20) , keep their wife and kids if they chose to leave their master (Exodus 21:4) or have their ear drilled through a door and serve his master forever if he choses to stay with his family (Exodus 21:6). I"m pretty sure that God could have come up with a better alternative.
Whether voluntary or not ( especially under these conditions) this is 'type' of slavery is just as morally reprehensible.
"Slavery in colonial United States and Europe was involuntary and subjected coercion fueled by racism and immorality. The slaves were not only coerced into forced labor but they were seen as non-humans with no legal equality. This is not how God worked in the Old Testament. Don't confuse the two."
Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites.
"If you had an inalienable right to choose life, then there would be no death since no rational human being would choose death."
Sorry I mean unalienable.
"Moreover, what agenda? It amazes me that I can't post anything without someone accusing me of manipulation "
"I will be the first to apologize for starting the accusations. I can see you're trying to be honest. However, if someone insists on a mistake or insists on sinning and tries to convince others that he is right, then the only natural reaction is skepticism. If this is not the case, and only God knows the heart of men, then accept my apology. If the skepticism is warranted, then examine yourself and make your own decision on what to do."
"Ioannes,
I asked Gabriel the same question last month. This was his answer.
Read the thread and see for yourselves. The only reason for an atheist to come to this site or any church service without changing their beliefs is not truth. There are other ulterior motives. As I stated, the atheist comes to sites like this to plant doubt in our own faith, not seek the truth. And that thread showed how easy it is for us to get sucked into false logic."
Not only are you dishonest, but you are as fickle as they come.
Peter A,
I appreciate that you think you're acting in such a way that is loving toward me, but you don't know me as a person and by your concession your love is a 'responsibility and a commandment', not a result of knowing and appreciating who I am as a person. While this may be peripheral to this discussion, I think in some ways its important address as its essentially the reason why you feel the need to tell me things you know I disagree with and things I've probably already heard a million times.
"But to support you in what you do, this is not love from a Christian perceptive" I don't know what you mean by 'what I do', regardless I have never asked you or anyone else to 'support me' or have ever expected any of you to. I came out and said 'this is' me, you can accept me as a person without agreeing or condoning my opinions or what ever it is 'i do'. i think thats almost the crux of unconditional love, right?
I don't agree with how you've defined "love" for atheists.
"I know that no amount of truth can tame foolishness." I don't know what you mean by 'tame foolishness'. I don't see where I've been foolish, again please cite what foolish thing I have said or done, and we can address it together.
"You aren't truly happy, and you aren't truly content regardless of what you think. but echoing scripture as it tells us, there's no joy apart from God. You may have convinced yourself you are, and that's fine, but sooner or later it'll catch up with you. And your heart which yearns for its creator will dig a deep crevice in your soul. I say this because I love you. Yes, here's that word again."
Statements like this essentially reinforce my non-belief in the validity of scripture. Firstly what does 'truly happy/content even mean'? Because I know Christians who aren't happy in the every day sense, who experience depression and anxiety and who see counsellors, and some even take medication. Are you going to tell me that they aren't really Christians?
My heart/emotions don't yearn for a creator, and I would know this because I'm me.
"True love seeks to correct and to save, not to appease unto destruction" If you're doing it because someone tells you to, its not love.
Ioannes,
I find that my purpose in church is to engage in discussions with people (some of whom are my friends) on issues that may be important to the coptic community which I'm heavily involved in. Through discussion I think we can learn things from each other and maybe change our minds about certain issues, yes including me. Furthermore, there have been many times where my objections, and questions where going through the minds of those also in those meetings/forums. Not only that but my Coptic Orthodox friends encourage me, as well as priests, pretty much whenever they can, to go to church and engage in these discussions and other church activities, knowing full well that I'm an atheist. I don't go there to change people's opinions or minds, sometimes I actually agree with what people say, and as with any regular situation in a forum or meeting, sometimes I don't agree with what people are say.
"However I have dealt with atheists at my church and have warned them when they mocked the church that if they did it again I would tell them to leave, if they did not, then I would physically remove them from the church."
OK? Good for you. I don't see how thats relevant.
"Church is a place that we celebrate the liturgy, that we work on our salvation, that we receive the body and blood of Christ."
No, not exclusively. There are discussions that go on in church, there are church fetes to raise money for causes, some churches go out and feed the poor, some churches put on camps to break the ice between people so as to create more of a fellowship between the youth of the church, (sometimes they do this at the church), some churches hold trivia nights and sport carnivals. I don't know what your church is like, but 'the liturgy' not the sole function of the churches here in Australia.
"I have no problem with you staying, but if you open your mouth and speak against the church, I hope that someone is there to shut it. I dont dislike you and I am not advocating violence, but I am not stupid, I know what you are doing."
You come across, like some other people here on this forum, as very paranoid and somewhat xenophobic.
What am I doing and what should I be 'stopping'? I really don't know what you're accusing me of.
I do, did, and hopefully, always will believe He exists, I just went through some doubt, and I was angry that he hid His face from me.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Liturgical services are for people of the same faith worshipping with One Spirit.
Gabe is a heretic, according to the Church, and should not be welcomed in the Church liturgical services as a REGULAR member. Neither should he be allowed to mingle with her children socially or otherwise for he is a tool in the devil's hand that is used to destroy the flock.
This is very true if he has made up his mind regarding his beliefs and is not coming to the church to seek her teaching.
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."
Again, I don't think it is ethical under any circumstance to own other people especially with the permission to beat them to death (Exodus 21:20) , keep their wife and kids if they chose to leave their master (Exodus 21:4) or have their ear drilled through a door and serve his master forever if he choses to stay with his family (Exodus 21:6). I"m pretty sure that God could have come up with a better alternative.
How typical it is for you to quote the Bible when you want to prove God is evil but refuse to acknowledge all the other Biblical verses that show how benevolent God is. Your debating rhetoric is weak. I already gave an answer to your supposition that God is not allowed to be unethical. But I'm sure you didn't read the book of Job or my response. Like everything else, you take Biblical quotations and interpret them in the exact opposite of their context. Exodus 21:20 condemns the master who beats the servant to death, not condone it. Exodus 21:4, like any other property contract, specifies ownership under conditions. It doesn't devalue the slave or the slaves wife and children since they were already considered property. Exodus 21:6 is a commandment for the free slave who wishes to remain a slave to his master to give an outwardly sign. It was a voluntary mark, like a tatoo, not a criminal act of assault and battery as you suggest.
Finally, what do you care if God is or isn't capable to find a better alternative solution to financial disaster? God doesn't even exist for you. I can't see why you are going out of your way to show God is unethical if God doesn't exist. Do you spend any energy arguing an imaginary chair or a table is ethical? Since you are spending all this energy proving a supposedly fictitous God is unethical, you either believe in God or you just want us to deny our faith. Which goes back to ulterior motives. Obviously, your definition of this "type" of slavery is wrong. I don't need to go any farther. None of this is in the Bible. Leviticus 25 talks about the Jubilee, "Freedom in the land". The chapter is about freedom. "You must not cheat each other. You must honor your God. I am the Lord your God" Lev 25:17. In the end of the chapter, it talks about rules of slavery in the other 49 years (non-Jubilee years). And if God forbids a brother to take his brother as a slave, you can consider that favoritism. Most people will agree but it is healthy favoritism. Just like when God says, "You are my people and I am your God." It is healthy favoritism. Stop taking verses out of context when you don't want to understand who God is and how He operates. In all online dictionaries (Dictionary.com, World English Dictionary, etc) unalienable is a variant of inalienable. Instead of distracting the argument on grammar, don't avoid my response. You don't have any absolute right to choose life. Therefore you don't have any unalianble (or inalienable) right over God, death and many, many other things. How am I dishonest Gabe? Did I not give the link to the thread where you said these things? Call me whatever you want. I don't care. You can deny your ulterior motives all you want. Your denial of truth makes you a thousand times more fickle than I will ever be. If you had any truth or real intelligence, you would honestly discuss the argument, not attack the person making the argument. I've given you many examples of your foolish arguments. And I cited them again. If you really want to address foolish arguments, you would repent from denying God. But you have no interest in discussing your foolish arguments. You only want people to people to deny their faith. Which is exactly what the devil does. And how many atheist are depressed? Correlating belief in God and validity of Scriptures with depression is a weak argument. If you really believe in scientific method, then you can't deny the overwhelming research in psychology that shows people who are religious (not just outwardly) are happier. Read the Happiness Hypothesis. A child who doesn't yearn for his parent and even disowns the parent cannot deny his parent exists and justify this belief by self-justification only. Self-justification is limited to self-knowledge. If self-justification is the only justification you have then your creator can exist without you knowing or wanting it. The same argument was discussed in the other thread. You can call a hospital a business with many other purposes than medicine. But it's sole primary purpose is to gather doctors and sick patients to heal. All other secondary purposes are coincidental. And if anyone continues to come to a hospital for secondary purposes only, they will be discouraged and possibly forcefully removed. You call it paranoia and xenophobia, I call it obedience to God, the Orthodox Church and the scriptures. "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" 2 Cor 6:14-15 and "Therefore Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “ I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17. I can go on. But you don't believe or understand the Scriptures and then turn around and question us for our belief or how we view atheists and unbelievers. How foolish!
Exodus 21:20" condemns the master who beats the servant to death, not condone it"
I probably should have added verse 21, unless of course you have selective reading. Here are both versus:
"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."
"It doesn't devalue the slave or the slaves wife and children since they were already considered property"
How does that even matter? Of course it devalues, not only the slave but his family. Someone is owning your wife and kids. And the only way to stay with them is to have a hole drilled through your ear, and then become that masters slave forever. LOL Yes it was volutnary to want to remain with your wife and kids, and hence it didn't devalue that human being..
Furthermore, who cares what type of slavery it is, its still slavery where people are owned and where people can beat their property to death and not be legally held responsible, and they can also hold people's family ransom so that they can gain permanent servitude.
"Most people will agree but it is healthy favoritism"
LOL yes the Israelites can be enslaved only up to 6 years and everyone else gets to be enslaved for the rest of their lives! Yes, very healthy.
In regards to inaliable/unalienable rights I wasn't referring to the power to chose life under any circumstance, I was referring to the right that should not be encroached upon by other people e.g.I have the right to live therefore you shouldn't just come to my house one day and shoot me in the head. I think it can be found in the US constitution under 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
Its scary that I have to walk you through this...I regard you dishonest and fickle because even after you said that "you could see I was trying to be honest", and I should accept your apology if I had no ulterior motives, though even if skeptisism was warranted then i should "examine myself and make your own decision on what to do. Though you retract this, it would seem, purely on the basis of Ioannes asking "what is your purpose here Gabriel". Why apologise, if you didn't even care what my response was? This is called being fickle my friend.
And this is certainly where the irony and hypocrisy becomes too humorous to bear.
"If you had any truth or real intelligence, you would honestly discuss the argument, not attack the person making the argument. "
I have, in just about every thread on this forum, been accused of ulterior motives, without any justification. The general reason for this is 'oh well we can't think of any reason as to why an atheist would go to church or be in a coptic forum, so therefore he has ulterior motives" even after I've told you why I do go. Now the "reference to my response that you gave Ioannes, that to you I guess clearly demonstrates my ulterior motives, was a logical analogy, that, at the time, I thought clearly demonstrated that the only reason why anyone would go to another place of worship is NOT NECESSARILY to convince people of other beliefs. Sure there is an agenda, but the agenda was, in this case explicitly stated i.e. to educate oneself, to connect with the community, and to even tag along with my coptic friends when asked. However you claim that I haven't come clean about something, which you have not given any justification for.
My accusations of your dishonesty and fickleness, I feel has been justified to a reasonable degree, so they weren't an attack, they were an observation about the way you conducted yourself. If you care to address them and show me that I'm wrong I'll be happy to reasses what I think of you. And if I do decide to retract those accusations, I'll be sure not reinstate them, until of course you give me reason to, though in which case I'll at least give you a opportunity to explain yourself, cause thats just the kind of guy that I am.
"If you really believe in scientific method, then you can't deny the overwhelming research in psychology that shows people who are religious (not just outwardly) are happier."
Religious people doesn't mean christians buddy :)
"If self-justification is the only justification you have then your creator can exist without you knowing or wanting it. "
I agree, but thats not what i said, I said I don't yearn for a creator. I didn't say that therefore there is no creator. What that does mean though, is that peter's statement that i do yearn for "my creator" is false.
"And if anyone continues to come to a hospital for secondary purposes only, they will be discouraged and possibly forcefully removed. "
I have never been discouraged or "forcibly" removed. In fact I continually get encouraged to come back, and even get a text or a friend who asks me "where I've been?". And how would you know if people are coming for secondary purposes? You do know that there is a social aspect to the church right? People could be going through the motions in church, but are really there to see friends, and this could be their only reason to go to church. If these people aren't even worthy to be on premises, then maybe you should go around asking people if they are there for the right reason?
"You call it paranoia and xenophobia, I call it obedience to God, the Orthodox Church and the scriptures. "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" 2 Cor 6:14-15 and "Therefore Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “ I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17. I can go on. But you don't believe or understand the Scriptures and then turn around and question us for our belief or how we view atheists and unbelievers. How foolish"
Well I was being instructed to "stop it", and I have no idea what "it" is and there was no explanation, and considering the context, it made no sense. Hence the impression of paranoia and to some degree unintelligibility. lol You do know that Belial is a demon, right? So you just like to insert words like "atheist" to change the meaning of scripture to what you want it to mean?(unless of course you equate people who are atheists with something demonic) But you do know that Jesus was friends with sinners? and you do know that churches go out and feed the poor, some of whom are not christians, some are atheists and ex-criminals, alcoholics and drug users and probably people of other religions (!!), whom they actually befriend and see on a weekly basis? But maybe your right, then I guess you have permission to accuse unbelievers of being lawless and likened to demons, and you can safely stay in your bubble with like minded people.
I did say "I wont engage in any further discussion with you until I see that you can address an accurate representation of what I'm saying", I clearly forgot what i said, but these points I think would have come up anyway...
I think I have proven my point here. You are only causing debate, as I would if I joined an online atheist forum. What am I accusing you of? Causing problems, as evidenced in this thread. You cause arguments on a site made for Orthodox Christians, not atheists. It would probably be different if you were an atheist who was interested in converting or whatever. What is your purpose here?
You say you are "heavily involved" in the church. Why? It is not a social club. It is a perfect place for imperfect people to attain salvation. You mention non-spiritual things as if that somehow justifies you being in the church. What would you think if a Christian became "heavily involved" in an atheist group? I am sure you would throw around those same insults, or level even heavier accusations against them.
If you wish to insult me that is fine, you are just showing to everyone what your real purpose is here. It is my hope that you be banned from this site, and hopefully banned from the church all together. You are not Orthodox nor Coptic in any way shape or form. You have no business in the church and should be thrown out for sowing seeds of doubt amongst the congregation. Paranoid? Your defensiveness against my questioning you only reveals the truth in your motives. Your actions are disgusting.
Did you read my first post here in this thread? I actually posted in this thread to respond to what someone had written that was relevant to the topic at hand. It was Peter A who then decided to begin accusing me of an agenda, then remenkemi, then you. You three have completely hijacked this thread and made it about me, I am also at fault here because I was stupid enough to engage. But if someone was attacking your integrity I'm sure you would have responded in the same way.
"You say you are "heavily involved" in the church. Why? It is not a social club."
I've already explained this.
"What would you think if a Christian became "heavily involved" in an atheist group? I am sure you would throw around those same insults, or level even heavier accusations against them. "
No I wouldn't, I'm very happy to say that I don't jump to conclusions nor do I find 'throwing insults' or 'accusations' useful or edifying to anyone, and to be honest I don't like ganging up on people nor offending others.
"If you wish to insult me that is fine, you are just showing to everyone what your real purpose is here."
Where have I insulted you?
"You are not Orthodox nor Coptic in any way shape or form. You have no business in the church and should be thrown out for sowing seeds of doubt amongst the congregation. Paranoid? Your defensiveness against my questioning you only reveals the truth in your motives. Your actions are disgusting."
My defensiveness is backed up with reason and actual justification. Your offensiveness is not, you haven't demonstrated in any way that I have ulterior motives, yet you tell me to 'stop it' (stop what?) now you're telling me I'm sowing doubt, which you haven't demonstrated but yet again only accused me of. And now whatever it is I'm doing is disgusting. The 'paranoid' vibes I'm getting from you are very much justified and not intended as an insult, but rather an observation.
I think this conversation has gone on long enough, if you wish to accuse me of anything please private message me, so that we don't de-rail other peoples discussion. Here's my contact details you can email me or call me and we can discuss, or you can have your priest/bishop email me or call me, If you want me banned from church altogether, because I'm such a destructive force, then place your efforts where they'll be more effective.
[email protected]
mob. 0450562944
There is no purpose for you here, let alone in an actual church! We love our church and have enough to deal with. We do not need a self deluded and insecure atheist seeking converts on our website OR in our church. Your very being here, as I have already says, shows that you have some ulterior motives. It would be the same thing if I were to join an atheist forum, what purpose could I possibly serve there? Ahhh to prostelytize.
Enough people have accused you of this that you should probably take a step back and examine yourself, a common Orthodox practice. OR you could just leave and stop causing problems.
I know that all you do is debate at church. I know you question the authenticity of scripture. All you want to do is debate there, so I know what you want to do here.
Where did I say I was trying to prove God to be evil?
You tried to prove God was unethical by allowing slavery. An unethical God is by definition evil. Therefore, you were directly trying to prove God unethical and indirectly trying to prove God was evil. We can play this game as long as you want, Gabe. Your foolishness is clearly evident. Since you claimed you were already confused, let me clarify it for you. Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion? I would explain it to you, but you have selective hearing since I already explained it. You think one verse proves God is unethical while ignoring the hundreds of verses which show God's benevolence. I'm not going to dignify your foolish attempt at using the Bible for your atheism. Why are you deflecting my question? Could it be because you have selective hearing? Why do you care if God is ethical if you don't believe in God? I am owned by my wife and by my Savior who purchased me with His blood. It is slavery. It is voluntary. And it matters that there is a difference in types of slavery that you refuse to acknowledge. You continue to twist the Bible out of context. I can argue with you how your facts about slavery in the Old Testament is wrong but it doesn't matter. You continue to twist information for your selective hearing. Or as you called it "standard of evidence" Again wrong. If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment. You loose the right to live, according to the law, under certain circumstances. The government will come to your house and eventually take away your life. Let me make it clear it for you. IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives. And it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest. Don't call me your friend. There has been plenty of justification. It is obvious you do not want to believe in God and you insist that you are only seeking to educate yourself. You've been told over and over that atheism is evil. You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. I do not care one bit what you think of me. As long as you continue to believe in atheism, nihilism, agnosticism or anything against the Orthodox faith, you have no credibility. No one cares to appease the uncredible. I don't care if you give me the opportunity to explain myself. I don't care how nice of a guy you are or how you nice you want people to see you if you continue to deny the Orthodox faith. Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method.
That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club. Any true Christian who believes in the Gospel that the Orthodox Church has received will not associate with unbelievers in Church. Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit. Again if you actually cared about your salvation, you would acknowledge St Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 11:26-29. First you say you had no idea what it is when it was clearly defined by Ioannes. And then you turn around and accuse the other of unintelligibility. Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one. There goes your selective hearing again. I already said Atheism is demonic. He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception. There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40. The authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ.
Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong.
believe it or not I have reflected on what you've said, well at least the first few times i've been accused of having ulterior motives. I've concluded that I have no ulterior motives and these accusations are a result of my position on certain issues and the way I represent them, I think. I obviously give off vibes that set people's alarms off. Furthermore, your statement that "I have no purpose here or in any church" is a mere opinion, which you're entitled to, just know that as far as opinions go, not only is it unsolicited but its divisive and not helpful to anyone.
Ioannes, debating is not ALL that I do at church (and i'm not sure how you claim to know this). I actually strive to engage in useful discussion with people, and sure I challenge people's beliefs and scripture but I do try to do so with respect of the people around me and the place I'm in. I don't sneakily try to plant seeds of doubt in people, actually I'm very upfront about my position on issues pertaining to religion and sexuality, and a lot of things, and a LOT op people know this. In fact the coptic church here provides an open forum to discuss the existence of God, where atheists and free thinkers are invited to discuss with Copts about these philosophical topics. So if there was a perfect opportunity to 'sow doubt' it would be on those nights, but because some people are not afraid to discuss these things openly, we can actually bring our doubts to the table and address them.
Peter A,
I didn't have the intention to provoke, I intended to generate discussion, which I think could have happened if you didn't jump to conclusions based on assumptions. I highlighted words to emphasise not to insinuate.
"You are pro homosexual reform. You don't believe in God. What responses did you expect from a Coptic Orthodox forum?"
I didn't expect much, but i thought through some rational discussion I could actually contribute or instigate useful discussions. I suppose you're not the only one operating under assumptions.
"They must know something we don't. They must see goodness in you, hope, a willingness to participate without discreetly introducing your thoughts. I'm on the fence as to whether you can stay or not. "
Peter I think this is the crux of the matter, no one here actually knows me, they see one side of me (which I probably don't present very well anyway) and people jump to conclusions about my entire character. Sure, for some it may appear that I give them reason to jump to certain conclusions because of the things I talk about and my position on certain issues and the way I talk about them, but I have never told anyone how to think about a certain issue. I often give reasons as to why I believe/don't believe certain things, and I also appraise people's arguments that I feel don't make sense to me. And thats just the nature of online forums, we only see a small part of each other and we all make assumptions, and pass judgements about the people we're talking to. I just think we pass harsher judgements toward people we don't agree with.
Remnkemi,
I wasn't trying to prove anything, yes i was challenging a claim, but it was to incite discussion. And really, I can't say anything else that could possibly add anymore merit to this. Take it or leave it dude.
"Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion?"
Yes with in context but still does not address my confusion as to how an omni-benevolent God could allow slavery under the conditions in the old testament.
"Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites."
"None of this is in the Bible.."
Was this your explanation? Cause clearly what I was refering to is in the bible (Exodus 21:20-21) and then you go onto say 'this chapter is about the jubilee' and that ' not enslaving your brothers is healthy favouritism'. What did I miss?
"If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment."
Ok so the original point I was in response to Peter A's comment that 'our only right is to led to repentance', let me use another example to demonstrate at least in a fair legal system would show that I have other rights as a human being, ok so for example, a right to a fair trial or a right to defend myself when I'm in danger.
"Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method. "
I have no interest in discussing the scientific method, as its not relevant. Someone made the universal claim that ' People cannot be truly happy unless they have God in their lives' I said that some Christians, that I know aren't actually happy (at least not happy in the everyday sense) which in turn undermined/contradicted the claim (look up the word contrary). Giving me an experiment that demonstrates that religious people are happier does no favours for the original claim, since religious could mean 'Buddhist, hindu, islam, new age' which contain different or no gods. Therefore this experiment that you are referring to is essentially irrelevant.
"IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives."
I see how this works now, if Ioannes says someone has an ulterior motive then you jump on the band wagon.
"it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest"
What evidence? and dishonest about what?
"It is obvious you do not want to believe in God "
No, actually i am open to the existence of God, if you bothered to push away the assumptions you are operating under and actually read what I've said countless times, I have found no good reason to believe in God, there may be one out there, but till I come across it I therefore have no reason to accept the claim that 'God or any God, exists.'
"You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
No i haven't been educated, actually I clearly haven't had the opportunity to, where you could have spent this time actually edifying me you have wasted it making accusations that you still have not given any good reason for, at least not to me.
Furthermore, unlike you (seemingly) I don't only speak with people I agree with, I like to have discussions with people who have a different perspective on life I get to learn more about the people and the world, I even sometimes get to learn about myself.
And where have i ever said that I subscribe to nihilism? Thats another assumption. I'm not a nihilist. Just because I don't believe in an afterlife or a god that doesn't mean I therefore think life is without purpose or meaning.
"..Arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
I have nerver argued on this site that God doesn't exist, I've explicitly expressed my non belief. I don't think Christians are hypocritical I think some christians are hypocritical, and I probably should have used the word 'sound' not valid, as I'll admit there are many valid or good things in the bible. And all i meant to imply was that there are some claims in the bible, or at least claims that have been interpreted in a certain way that are contradicted by reality.
"That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club."
You're wrong, considering some of my friends are in fact priests. How could you actually make a claim to knowledge like this without actually knowing my friends? More assumptions and more judgements.
"Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit. "
I wasn't talking about my friends champ. There is a social aspect to church, well at least some churches. People go they see friends, and they may equally be there for what ever service is on and the people there.
"Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one."
Yep ok, i'm unintelligible.
"And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)?
" I already said Atheism is demonic. "
Ok you think I'm demonic, thanks for your opinion, as unsolicited as it maybe.
"He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception."
So when its commanded in the bible to love your neighbours as yourselves, what do you think the world 'love' means there? Or neighbour actually?
"There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40. "
Oh ok well you better let these missionaries know that they are befriending lawless people and that they are going against scripture!
"the authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ. "
And Jesus also said to be 'as wise as serpents' and considering the amount of assumptions you've operated under, you've done the exact opposite.
"Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong."
I've never insisted that atheism logical, i have given reasons as to why I don't believe in God. People can claim to be atheists for completely illogical reasons, I however have given fairly logical reasons to justify my non belief. I haven't insisted that you tolerate 'atheism' i have insisted that you tolerate atheists, nor have claimed that Christians are unintelligible, I may have said that of one person, but I never then made a judgement call of every christian.
Oh I have no doubt that you can keep this up I just don't think I have the time or the patience to keep correcting you.