The godly are a rare breed in our day. Even so, many people do what they can to avoid them – at least, to avoid those who will speak to them about the things that matter. The arts do not portray them adequately.
Rather like references to sin and Sabbath, the conversation of the godly reminds them of God and eternity, which they do not like.
Whereas it is their choice to do so, it is a poor choice. They need to reflect upon why they would rather not speak about God and eternity. Why should this be so?
There will be many reasons given. There may be truth in each of these reasons, but do these reasons address why they are unwilling to discuss fundamental matters about man’s being? Denial is a well-known human reaction to unpleasant facts. Rather than face up to the facts, they ignore them and pretend to themselves that they do not exist.
Many have had a bad experience of institutional religion, with which one can only sympathise, and their way of coping with bad memories is to ignore the subject and close down debate. The godly agree with their criticism of false religion and possibly have an even stronger passion against it. This is why the godly speak about the things that matter. They know about false religion and correct it with godly religion rather than misfire with irreligion. Jesus Christ criticised the institutional religion of His day and was crucified for it.
Some accuse the godly of hypocrisy because ‘they do not practice what they preach’. This accuses the godly of being unable to live up to the high standards of the Word of God. The problem with the charge of hypocrisy is that the godly do not preach that they can or do live up to these standards. They are aspirations – the godly are the first to admit that they are sinners, a word that the ungodly do not like and therefore use as a joke. Besides, if they think the conversation of the godly is preaching, they should learn what preaching really is.
Many people do not think about God because they are aware that they will need to change their lives, and they do not want ‘to become religious’ with all the consequences thereof. They want to be independent and in control of their lives, although every sensible consideration of their circumstances should lead them to the conclusion that they are dependent beings, neither independent nor in control. ‘Take back control’ is a current slogan, suggesting we are not in control, and the adage ‘no man is an island’ has been around for a long time.
So why can they not simply address conversations about God, origins, destiny, etc., in a sensible and calm manner to everyone’s benefit? Many people do, who are not ‘religious’ by their own admission. Is it because their conscience troubles them? The thought of God troubles them.
Let us begin with the good news. The Gospel is designed to bring peace to troubled consciences.
‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ Rom 5:1.
The bad news for those who ignore this is they cannot get away from their own conscience. Christ calls it ‘the worm that does not die’, that will gnaw continually throughout eternity.
So, the next time you meet the godly who will address the important things in life, engage with them and ask them a few intelligent questions and who can say how fruitful you will discover it to be? ‘But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life’ Rom 6:22.
Links
13 Feb 2013: wise preaching.
1 Jun 2016: what constitutes a ‘good’ minister?
8 Apr 2019: What constitutes a ‘good’ sermon?
Donald's Thoughts 
in that every Christians claims that they are godly, and that they don’t agree on what “godly” means, there is no reason to think that any Christian has the truth. All you have done is repeat false claims about people who don’t agree with you. The old “people just want to do what they want and that’s why they don’t like my version of my god” is just an attempt to ignore that most non-believers simply don’t see any evidence for your claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your first sentence is non sequitur. Godly means ‘Godlike’, but I use it in its biblical sense, not in the thoughtless, secular, flippant manner.
About your second sentence, what claims and how are they false?
On your third sentence: far from ignoring it I spend a lot of time on it. ‘Most non-believers’ is far too non-specific. If you mean atheists I am well aware that atheists don’t see any evidence for God. Jesus said: ‘Their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should be converted’ Mat 13:15. It is time that they opened their eyes and looked.
LikeLike
Donald, in that Christians don’t agree with what “Godly” means or what their god is like, what it wants, what it has said, etc, your claim of using it in the “biblical sense” only means that you use it in what your version of your religion wants it to mean. Other Christians don’t agree with you about what the bible actually means and their idea of “biblical” isn’t yours. You will of course claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t really a Christian or doing it “right”. Godly or godlike is subjective unless you can show that your version is the only right version; can you? And nice to see you falsely try to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is “thoughtless” or “flippant”.
Let’s look at your claims. You claim that only you and those who agree with you are “godly”. No evidence of this at all or a definition of what this actually means e.g. is godly wanting to murder homosexuals, or accepting them as this god made them, is it approving genocide of non-believers or accepting that they may worship differently? Is it assuming that predestination is the right answer or that free will is the right answer?
You claim that those who don’t agree with you have had a “bad experience” and that is why they don’t agree with you. Some may have but the vast majority know that you have no evidence that your religion is true, and we have plenty of evidence that entirely different things happened in the time periods that magical bible events are claimed to have happened.
You claim that everyone but your belief is a “false religion”, without any more evidence that your religion is true than those religions have. You claim that people don’t want to believe in your god because they “will need to change their lives” aka the old Christian nonsense that people just want to rebel against their god. You need to tell yourself this because you must believe your god exists, that is a baseless presupposition. You falsely claim that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t “calm” or “sensible”.
False claims about people who disagree with you seem to be common with you, and are nothing more than bearing false witness against others in order to try to excuse yourself from paying attention to what they say. You falsely claim that anyone who disagrees with you is troubled by their “conscience”. Hate to tell you but I’m not bothered at all bout not believing in your god, despite the need for threats from Christians about their “hell”. And finally, you try to claim that any questions put to you aren’t “intelligent” if you don’t like them. How pitiable.
It’s curious that you insist that most non-believers is too “non-specific”. I mean most non-believers, including non-Christians, and you don’t like that. They don’t see any evidence for your god either. It’s interesting that you quote Matthew 13. Of course, you don’t quote the bit where JC says that he intentionally makes sure that some people will never be able to accept him (just like in Romans 9) and what the verses from Isaiah really says “And he (the Lord) said, “Go and say to this people: Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.’ 10 Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.” And this is quite a quote too, from Isaiah 63 “Why, O LORD, do you make us stray from your ways and harden our heart, so that we do not fear you?” Why would a believer be sure that this god was doing this?
Interesting that, per your bible, it’s your god that prevents people from accepting it. Just how would I resist an omnipotent god, Donald (if it existed, of course)? It rather seems that per your god, I can’t “open my eyes and look”. Now, how does this work with a supposedly just and fair god that evidently damns people for things that they have no control over? You see, Donald, your bible is a mess, with claims that we should be able to see your god in the universe (like most if not all other religions which is another problem) and then has your god saying that it keeps people from doing just that. This is what comes from reading the whole bible, not just believing in what pastors and priests tell you that you should read.
Oh and thanks for claiming that Christians have a “superior” worldview. So many Christians claim that they aren’ t claiming that they are superior for what they believe in false humility. You’re right out there insisting how great you are. As for thinking the “secular worldview” is superior, yes, since it reflects reality. Unless you’d like to provide what you think is evidence for your version of your religion, we have nothing that shows any magical force exists.
Now, I am quite happy to engage in serious debate, as shown above. I suspect you will falsely claim otherwise.
LikeLike
Yours is a long comment.
You state: “ your claim of using it [godly] in the “biblical sense” only means that you use it in what your version of your religion wants it to mean. “only means that you use it in what your version of your religion wants it to mean.”. True, most people use words according to their understanding of their meaning. Why should they use someone else’s meaning?
“You will of course claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t really a Christian”. You are wrong, showing your prejudice.
“And nice to see you falsely try to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is “thoughtless” or “flippant”.” Sorry: it was speaking about a ‘manner’, not people. It was a description not ‘a claim’. Wrong again.
“Let’s look at your claims. You claim that only you and those who agree with you are “godly”.” Wrong. I do not.
“No evidence of this at all or a definition of what this actually means.” Wrong: I said I use it in the biblical sense. Although your paragraph is therefore beside the point, I comment on it: 1. this is evidence; 2. its definition can be determined from the Bible, one example to begin determining the biblical definition is Psalm 32:6; 3. you misunderstand my sentence as a description of ‘any who disagrees with you’; 4. “is godly wanting … accepting … approving … assuming” are all attitudes and opinions; godliness is more than opinions and 5. it makes me wonder how to interact with someone who reframes sentences so frequently.
“You claim that those who don’t agree with you have had a “bad experience” and that is why they don’t agree with you… claim that everyone but your belief is a “false religion”, … False claims about people who disagree with you seem to be common with you.” Rather, you do not know the difference between a claim and a description.
“and that is why they don’t agree with you.” Another non sequitur.
“You claim that people don’t want to believe in your god because they “will need to change their lives” aka the old Christian nonsense that people just want to rebel against their god.” No, I do not claim that. I said ‘many people’, which you have generalised. I have given different scenarios. 1. Many have had bad experiences… 2. many people … are aware that they will need to change their lives. 3. Is it because their conscience troubles them? You have taken each one as applying to everyone, whereas I do not say so.
“You falsely claim that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t “calm” or “sensible”.” No, I do not. Read the sentence again.
I am glad you have taken the time to interact, at least it shows me and hopefully you also that people need to clarify their language. I spend a lot of time on this.
“False claims about people who disagree with you seem to be common with you, and are nothing more than bearing false witness against others in order to try to excuse yourself from paying attention to what they say.” The boot is on the other foot. I listen closely to what others say and interact with their own words as I am doing here, but you change what they say.
“Hate to tell you but I’m not bothered at all bout not believing in your god.” I don’t think you ‘hate to tell’ me at all. I think you love to tell me, unless you mean that in telling me you are actually hating me.
“finally, you try to claim that any questions put to you aren’t “intelligent” if you don’t like them.” Yet another non-claim about a description. Read it again.
“It’s curious that you insist that most non-believers is too “non-specific”.” It was non-specific. You have now clarified that you mean more than non-Christians but non-believers can refer to almost anything. Believers in flat-earth, believers in extra-terrestrial intelligence, believers in what? You are still too non-specific when you write: “I mean most non-believers, including non-Christians, and you don’t like that.” You are 1. non-specific about ‘non-believers’, 2. ambiguous about ‘that’, 3. prejudicial about ‘you don’t like that’ as well as 4. showing your readiness to misread my motives.
“the bit where JC says that he intentionally makes sure that some people will never be able to accept him (just like in Romans 9) and what the verses from Isaiah … Why would a believer be sure that this god was doing this?”
At last, you reach some content instead of methodology. I note that you are now becoming nuanced with ‘some people’, but you don’t give the text where Jesus Christ is supposed to have said so. Rather you have avoided what He does say in Mat 13:15, which commonly happens in debate.
You have quoted Isa 6:9-10 and Isa 63:17. The former is often quoted in the New Testament, not just by the Lord Jesus Christ but by the apostles. They quote it as an explanation for why people will not believe the Word of God. The first Isaiah quotation highlights that the preaching of the Word of God makes some people shut their ears and eyes. I have frequently discovered this, just as Isaiah, Jesus Christ and His apostles had discovered. Isaiah was told that this would be the widespread effect of his preaching – it would be resisted and ignored as has happened in many periods of human history. You have chosen to interpret this as ‘he intentionally makes sure that some people will never be able to accept him’. This is not how Jesus nor His apostles interpreted it. They put the responsibility for this reaction upon the hearers, not upon God.
Just as Isa 6:9-10 is speaking about the collective response in resisting the preaching of the prophet Isaiah, similarly in Isa 63:17 Isaiah asks why the Lord has allowed them to continue to backslide so much. Isaiah is interceding for those who will not pray for themselves, who have closed their eyes to God’s message through His prophet Isa 6:9-10.
You conclude the citing of these two passages from Isaiah by asking: “Why would a believer be sure that this god was doing this?” I think you are asking about human assurance about God and His actions. 1. your question follows a wrong interpretation of the Isaiah passages, which describe common human behaviour in resisting God’s offer of salvation, which continues to the present time and it is personally witnessed by Christians so they are quite easily assured that this is what happens in human experience. 2. however, on the subject of Christian assurance about God and His actions, the answer is in their personal experience, which they cannot transfer to you or any other person. Assurance is a personal conviction.
“how would I resist an omnipotent god?” Quite easily. You are doing it right now, and there is nothing new about it Acts 7:51. But you will not succeed, any more than a person may try to resist the tide coming in, but he will not succeed. You can resist gravity, but you will not succeed. The good news is that God will do something about it.
You have not understood the Christian God nor the biblical doctrine of free will, which I notice you have studied from your earlier comment about “predestination and free will”. I do not know if you have studied the scientific literature on determinism and free will, which also struggles with these questions as you do.
“It rather seems that per your god, I can’t “open my eyes and look”.” Wrong again. 1. Jesus says you are closing your eyes, but you choose to ignore this and then reverse the concept. 2. you are mistaking your gods. The Bible describes the ‘god of this world’ 2Cor 4:4 as blinding those who do not believe, but this is a description of devilish activity, not divine activity as you wrongly assert. You can read the context, and you can include Eph 2:1-3 as well.
“thanks for claiming that Christians have a “superior” worldview.” 1. remember, it was you who introduced this topic. 2. I responded to it. 3. you have now responded: “As for thinking the “secular worldview” is superior, yes, since it reflects reality.” Surprise, surprise. We each think our worldview is superior to other. Wouldn’t it be strange if it was otherwise? However, there is a difference. You personalise it, as usual. “You’re right out there insisting how great you are.” Make up your mind. Is it my worldview, shared by other Christians, that is superior or is it me that is superior? You have personalised and reframed almost all of these issues.
“we have nothing that shows any magical force exists.” It depends upon what you mean by magical. Quantum physics is full of effects that scientists do not understand. It looks as if you don’t know enough science far less Christianity.
“Now, I am quite happy to engage in serious debate, as shown above. I suspect you will falsely claim otherwise.” I am glad you are happy, but it is not serious debate. I have demonstrated how – 1. you bypassed Jesus’ words in Mat 13:15 and put other words in His mouth without citing the passage. 2. You have done the same with my blogpost, repeatedly, which I have demonstrated. 3. you have cited two passages from Isaiah, misunderstood them and blamed God for man’s reaction to His offer of salvation. 4. you have personalised and reframed almost all of these issues and failed to remain on the topic. 5. you have repeatedly tried to read my motives, and repeatedly got it wrong, as I have demonstrated above.
I am glad you want debate, so you can prove it by finding some local Christians and debating with them, which was the subject of my blogpost.
You might want to listen to this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it was a long comment. So?
No, most people don’t try to change the meaning of a word that has an established meaning. In the realm of religion, one sect will try to exclude those who disagree with them, insisting that they are not “godly”, and having no evidence to show that one group is more “godly” e.g. following the perceived of what a god wants, than the next. Each has a different and baseless opinion that their version is the only “right” one. None of you can show that your god approves of one group more than another, though they do certainly try to claim this is so. However, none of you can do what is claimed Christians can do in the bible, so there is no reason to believe any of you.
No, I don’t think I’m wrong at all in pointing out that Christians insist that those Christians they disagree with aren’t Christians and aren’t “godly”. For instance, I know that there are Christians who have no problem with same-sex marriage and use the bible to support that. If I am correct in assuming that the Scottish Christian Party doesn’t approve of this, then yep, I know that you don’t think that Christians who agree with you are Christian. This holds the same concerning abortion rights, and the idea of a “just war”. You also seem to parrot the US conservative Christians in that they try to claim religious persecution when they can’t force their religions views on others, for instance in their opposition to marriages they don’t agree with.
And a description is a claim that your description is accurate. As for you trying to claim it was only about a “manner”, people have manners, you can’t separate them. It is funny to see you try to excuse yourself in this way.
Again, Donald, you and every other Christain claim that you and only you are using words, the bible, etc in the “biblical sense” aka how you interpret the bible. All you have is a claim that your version is the only right version and that isn’t evidence, only a story. Now, why you mention “Psalm 32:6; 3” I’m not sure, since that isn’t usual nomenclature of verses. This is what Psalm 32:6 says “Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you; at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them.” Not sure what the “3” is for. In that Christians, or any particular sects, don’t have any less rates of harm coming to them than any other person, the Psalm shows how this god fails in answering these prayers. In that everyone claims that they are “godly” and don’t agree with the others who make the same claim, it is nothing more than an opinion. And I haven’t reframed anything, however you do quite job in trying to use ellipses in chopping up what I have said to the point of incompressibility. It’s interesting that you chose to do that, and it doesn’t surprise me at all.
Funny how you try to make a “non-sequitor” out of something that wasn’t presented that way at all. Why did you choose to do that, Donald? This what I said “You claim that those who don’t agree with you have had a “bad experience” and that is why they don’t agree with you. Some may have but the vast majority know that you have no evidence that your religion is true, and we have plenty of evidence that entirely different things happened in the time periods that magical bible events are claimed to have happened.” You seem to have no idea what a non-sequitor is. And again, you claim aka “describe” that people do this and such for a certain reason, and yes, Donald, that is a claim and a baseless one when you cannot show that this is the case.
You have indeed said “many people” and you have said that they want to rebel against their god and that they had bad experiences. Now, if you know atheists, your claim that there are “many” of them that disagree with you because of bad experiences or rebellion, then you don’t know atheists. You have to claim that “many” of them do “x”, because you don’t like the answer that in truth, many of them don’t have those reasons, and that the main reason that atheists don’t believe is that there is no evidence for your god, just like how you believe that there is no evidence for other gods you don’t believe in.
Now, let’s look at what you did say about being sensible “Many people do not think about God because they are aware that they will need to change their lives, and they do not want ‘to become religious’ with all the consequences thereof. They want to be independent and in control of their lives, although every sensible consideration of their circumstances should lead them to the conclusion that they are dependent beings, neither independent nor in control.” So, yes, Donald, you did say that people who do not agree with you are not sensible. You want to pretend that it is only “sensible” to believe what you say, that all people are “dependent beings”, when again, you have no evidence of this. You say this “So why can they not simply address conversations about God, origins, destiny, etc., in a sensible and calm manner to everyone’s benefit? “ and the context of this is the above claim that only the “sensible” agree with you that they are “dependent beings”. Why you would try to claim that you aren’t
indicating that those who disagree with you are not calm and not sensible is a curiosity, and evidently you don’t think I can read and understand English. And you want to claim that I somehow change what people say. So here I present you with what you did say.
I do hate to have to tell you that I’m not scared of your nonsense, for it means that you actually do believe that I’m somehow bothered in not believing in your god. I do find it unfortunate that anyone believes what you do. I can say I hate the idea of a genocidal ignorant god, but it’s hard to hate something that doesn’t exist.
Again, you claim you don’t say what you do. Let’s look at what you said regarding being intelligent: “So, the next time you meet the godly who will address the important things in life, engage with them and ask them a few intelligent questions and who can say how fruitful you will discover it to be?” Donald, here you are saying that those who meet the godly haven’t asked intelligent questions before, when we both know that is not the case. You are trying to claim that the “right” questions aren’t being asked by non-believers e.g. those that you think you can answer. If the questions can’t be answered by you, they become “unintelligent” by definition, when that is only your opinion.
Wow, nice to see you can’t figure out context. What do you think I mean about non-believers in a comment about a post about atheists and religion? Would you maybe think I’m saying “non-believers” in the religion you mention? And it’s not prejudicial to point out what you have indicated. But let me be as elementary as I can. This is what I said initially “The old “people just want to do what they want and that’s why they don’t like my version of my god” is just an attempt to ignore that most non-believers simply don’t see any evidence for your claims.” Now, let’s try this again “The old “people just want to do what they want and that’s why they don’t like my version of my god” is just an attempt to ignore that most non-believers, including non-Christians, Muslims, Wicca, atheists, animists, Shinto, Buddhists, Jews, and every other believer of every other religion on earth, simply don’t see any evidence for your claims. This does not include people who believe in things other than a religious point of view, like conspiracy theorists, because that is not a direct contradiction to their views. People can be sure that we didn’t walk on the moon, and be a Christian or a Muslim. I just can’t wait for your next excuse about this. And it’s just great to see you whine about “methodology”.
I always run into this, where a Chrsitian is either too lazy to look in his bible or has no idea what it says when they insist that I must cite chapter and verse to put off the inevitable. Hmm, well what does JC say in Matthe 13:15, because it’s always great fun to watch a Christian cherry pick? “‘You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive.15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears,and understand with their heart and turn— and I would heal them.” Now, let’s see what is said in Isaiah 32 which JC is supposedly quoting “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I; send me!” 9 And he said, “Go and say to this people:‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend;keep looking, but do not understand.’10 Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.” Now isn’t this interesting: your god is the one doing the action on the people, making them unable to accept this god, just like Romans 9 says and just like JC intentionally does by using parables and doesn’t mention that it is him/this god that made people unable to see and hear. Why would Jesus leave such a thing out, Donald? This is why it helps to read the bible rather than assuming you know what it says. The author of Isaiah is sure that this god is the actor and the one who prevents people from being able to accept this god, and JC leaves that part out. What you claim about the author of Isaiah is again, nothing more than baseless opinion, invented to excuse your god and intentionally ignoring what the bible actually says. You can ignore the term “make” as long as you’d like. The word won’t vanish. And Yep, it might not be how the apostles interpreted it, they were also make up their religion in their image. It’s inconvenient to have a god that intentionally damns people by making them unable to accept it. Now, exactly how are the hearers responsible if this omnipotent god has said it acts against them? How can they resist? Oh well, considering your attempts to ignore context above, it is no surprise whatsoever that you ignore it in your bible too. It’s easy when you declare that your interpretation is the only right one.
I asked ““Why would a believer be sure that this god was doing this?” because a believer, the author of Isaiah believes that his god is stopping people from accepting it. If this isn’t true as you claim, then the author is believing in something that isn’t happening. But again, you’ll just say that I’m “misinterpreting” the verses, with the usual lack of evidence that your version is right.
Hmmm, funny how I’m not resisting an omnipotent god at all. It’s just like this god isn’t here because nothing happens. Now, if I’m resisting, then how is it not succeeding, Donald? It’s happening right now because you say I am, and I’m batting a thousand with having evidence that your god doesn’t exist and you not being able to even convince other Christians your version is the only right on. Still no god, still no prayers answered, and still no second coming after thousands of years. I can resist gravity and can succeed (e.g. airplanes), so your analogy is silly. The constant “My god is coming real soon now and you’ll be sorry.” Doesn’ t work very well after such constant failure.
Donald, right now, I have another Christian who is sure he is part of the “elect” so who is right, you with your free will nonsense or him with his predestination nonsense? I’ve read a lot about determinism and free will. We can’t know all of the events that shape us so we act like we have free will. Christians make claims on both sides and fail on both sides.
I do love that you try to claim that this “4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Is about the devil. How gnostic of you, and thank you for showing how drastically Christianity has changed. I don’t think I cited 2 Corinthians 4:4 at all and Ephexians 2:1-3 is quite gnostic too. It’s amazing on how impotent this god can be when it’s convenient for Christians.
Again, thanks for claiming that Christians have a superior worldview. Yep, I did introduce this topic, and you told me what you thought. I enjoy seeing that you actually admit that you think that your version of your religion is superior since it is not uncommon for Chrsitians to try to claim that they are ever so humble and not saying this at all, sticking them in a lie. So, Donald, show me how you version of your religion is superior; what does it do that another religion doesn’t or that non-believe in your nonsense doesn’t do. You see, I can show that reality is reality. What can you show? And yep, I do personalize it because that is what *you* are doing. That so many Christians like you are terrified by being held accountable for what you say is amazing. You aren’t superior at all but you sure think you are. You think your worldview superior but it is not. And again, not all Christians share your worldview.
Quantum physics aren’t magic, but nice try. No, Donald, I’m talking about the supernatural nonsense theists claim. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t make it magic. We know that quantum physics works and is predictable from the laws we have discovered. Alas for you, I know quite a bit about quantum physics as well as Christianity and have plenty of reason to laugh at you because of your pathetic attempt to equate physics with magic. We have plenty of evidence for it. Now, hmmm, where is that evidence for your magical god again?
Ah, there we go, Donald, the attempt to claim that this is not “serious debate”. What a nice lie you tell to excuse yourself. Keep going, Donald and know that you chose to lie about someone else to avoid a serious debate. I’ve debated plenty of local Christians, and they fail just like you with the same lies and insistence that their personal interpretations were the only right ones. Indeed, they disagree with you, and like you can’t do what Chrsitians are promised to do in the bible, so it seems that none of you are the real deal, if there is a real deal to be had. And the same claims from you audibly don’t make them any more true.
LikeLike
“Yes, it was a long comment. So?” Possibly you have heard of discussion boards. This blog is not a discussion board.
“No, most people don’t try to change the meaning of a word that has an established meaning.” Wrong; the family is changing its meaning? ‘Gay’ and ‘proud’ have changed their meaning in recent times. Besides, I have not tried ‘to change the meaning of a word.’
“yep, I know that you don’t think that Christians who agree with you are Christian.” False, and a non sequitur. Besides, this is a personal blog. Make up your mind if ‘you’ is me or the Scottish Christian Party. Again, your lack of clarity does not help your cause.
“As for you trying to claim it was only about a “manner”, people have manners, you can’t separate them. It is funny to see you try to excuse yourself in this way.” It is not an excuse but pointing out English vocabulary and grammar.
“Again, Donald, you and every other Christain claim that you and only you are using words, the bible, etc in the “biblical sense” aka how you interpret the bible.” You are flogging a dead horse.
“Now, why you mention “Psalm 32:6; 3” I’m not sure, since that isn’t usual nomenclature of verses. This is what Psalm 32:6 says “Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you; at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them.” Not sure what the “3” is for.”
1. wrong: it is standard biblical nomenclature, exposing to me how little you know about biblical references. 2. You have quoted the New International Version but even a minimal amount of research would have shown you that other versions use the word ‘godly’, exposing how little you know about this. 3. I mention 3 because it is the third point in a list of five items, exposing how unobservant you are.
“Funny how you try to make a “non-sequitor” out of something that wasn’t presented that way at all. Why did you choose to do that, Donald?” I answered this last time.
“… then you don’t know atheists.” Wrong, and exposing your prejudices again.
“You have to claim…” I don’t.
“Now, let’s look at what you did say about being sensible … So, yes, Donald, you did say that people who do not agree with you are not sensible.” You do not notice the difference between a sensible consideration and a sensible person, showing your failure to understand English grammar, repeated in your next comment – ‘a sensible manner’ is different from ‘a sensible person’. I am beginning to understand that your passion comes from misunderstanding statements that you have taken personally. My Christian charity can accommodate this, but it does not need to keep on repeating it. I mentioned it in my previous response and it appears that you are still missing the point.
“I do hate to have to tell you …” I commented on this last time. There is an expression: ‘when you are in a hole, stop digging’.
“Let’s look at what you said regarding being intelligent: …” The same point as above. You do not distinguish ‘intelligent questions’ from intelligent people.
“You are trying to claim that the “right” questions aren’t being asked by non-believers”. Sometimes that is so, but as usual you generalise it. My plea was for intelligent debate – you personalise it as usual. The ad hominem argument does not contribute to debate but detracts from it by distracting from the topic of debate.
“If the questions can’t be answered by you, they become “unintelligent” by definition, when that is only your opinion.” Wrong: I never suggested that they could not be answered but that ‘unintelligent’ questions would, for example, be about matters that are beside the point. However, I was thinking about those intelligent people who will not engage in debate – the exact opposite of your claim that I was calling them unintelligent. So I was suggesting that these intelligent people should demonstrate their intelligence by contributing ‘a few intelligent questions’ to the debate.
“Wow, nice to see you can’t figure out context. What do you think I mean about non-believers in a comment about a post about atheists and religion?” But the topic of the blogpost is ‘those who do not like the godly’, which includes much more than ‘atheists and religion’, demonstrating that 1. you are going off topic; 2. you are re-framing the debate to your own ‘context’, which I mentioned in my previous response to you.
“But let me be as elementary as I can.” “… is just an attempt to ignore that most non-believers … simply don’t see any evidence for your claims.” You may think so, but I don’t ignore it. Rather, I am faced with it rather frequently. “I just can’t wait for your next excuse about this. And it’s just great to see you whine about “methodology”.” Your impatience and joy are interesting to note.
“I always run into this, where a Chrsitian is either too lazy to look in his bible or has no idea what it says when they insist that I must cite chapter and verse to put off the inevitable.” I cannot deny your experience. This is why I suggested that you use your intelligence to engage these Christians in sensible debate. I note now that you tell me that you do – good.
“it’s always great fun to watch a Christian cherry pick?” If you are in this debate to amuse yourself, then you will understand why I will decide that my time can be better spent than in amusing you.
“Now, let’s see what is said in Isaiah 32 [sic: you meant Isa 6:8-10] which JC is supposedly quoting … Now isn’t this interesting: your god is the one doing the action on the people, making them unable to accept this god, just like Romans 9 says and just like JC intentionally does by using parables and doesn’t mention that it is him/this god that made people unable to see and hear.” Your topic is about God’s sovereignty, man’s responsibility, the freedom and bondage of the human will, exegesis, with Rom 9 and Jesus’ parables thrown in for good measure. It is the blunderbuss technique, in the hope that something will stick. I have answered the essence of this already and will simply summarise that you are making God responsible for man’s sinful unwillingness to listen and respond.
“You can ignore the term “make” as long as you’d like. The word won’t vanish. And Yep, it might not be how the apostles interpreted it, they were also make up their religion in their image.” 1. It is not uncommon for translators of Hebrew and Greek to be unable to distinguish questions, rhetorical questions, statements and commands. 2. Jesus and His apostles knew the Hebrew and Greek Bible better than we do. 3. You are correct that these words will not vanish Mat 24:35. 4. Your attempt to make a distinction between Isaiah and Jesus and ‘how the apostles interpreted it’ fails because they are directly quoting the Septuagint; there is no distinction. The Jews have always understood this in the passive, long before Jesus was in the world, and you have chosen to blame God for being the causative agent while I have already explained in what sense mankind is the causative agent.
“It’s inconvenient to have a god that intentionally damns people by making them unable to accept it. Now, exactly how are the hearers responsible if this omnipotent god has said it acts against them?” Your premise is wrong.
“How can they resist?” I have already answered this.
“But again, you’ll just say that I’m “misinterpreting” the verses”: true.
“Now, if I’m resisting, then how is it not succeeding, Donald?” I have already answered this.
“still no second coming after thousands of years”: 2Pe 3:3-10.
“I can resist gravity and can succeed (e.g. airplanes), so your analogy is silly.” Think a bit more about it – in context.
The constant “My god is coming real soon now and you’ll be sorry.” Soon? Yes in one sense and no in another sense.
“Donald, right now, I have another Christian who is sure he is part of the “elect” so who is right, you with your free will nonsense or him with his predestination nonsense?” You can discuss it with him.
“I’ve read a lot about determinism and free will.” Good.
“It’s amazing on how impotent this god can be when it’s convenient for Christians.” Check the link.
“So, Donald, show me how you version of your religion is superior; what does it do that another religion doesn’t or that non-believe in your nonsense doesn’t do.” I didn’t say I could show it to you: 1. I indicated that each person holds their own worldview because they think it is the best and thus, by implication, superior, and 2. I said assurance is a personal conviction that one cannot transfer to someone else. Each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind Rom 14:5. However, “what does it do that another religion doesn’t”: I think you don’t want to hear about peace with God, peace of conscience, Christian joy, etc., but something more tangible. When people convert to Christianity they do so for a reason, because they find something in Jesus Christ that they do not find elsewhere. Further, Christianity has a completely different morality from secular morality.
“And yep, I do personalize it because that is what *you* are doing.” Precisely, you have misinterpreted and misunderstood my statements in a personal manner, as explained above.
“Quantum physics aren’t magic, but nice try.” What? Are you giving me credit for something? “No, Donald, I’m talking about the supernatural nonsense theists claim. … I know quite a bit about quantum physics … Now, hmmm, where is that evidence for your magical god again?” You introduced magic, not me, and I responded; it might be helpful to say what you mean rather than introduce red herrings such as magic. Nor did I speak about a magical god so I cannot answer this question. However, ‘the laws we have discovered’ should direct you towards intelligence and ultimately towards God. I assume that you know what Feynman said about people who think that they understand quantum physics. For the benefit of anyone reading this lengthy exchange it was: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
“Ah, there we go, Donald, the attempt to claim that this is not “serious debate”.” I have already given five reasons why it is not serious debate. The emphasis was on debate. I accept that you are serious, but it is not debate. A chairman presiding over a debate would stop your ad hominem arguments and bring you back to the point. So I remind you that this blog is not a debating forum, nor a discussion board with moderators. You have said what you have to say and anyone with the patience to read this correspondence can form their own opinion about it.
“I’ve debated plenty of local Christians”: good. That was the aim of my blogpost, and you seem to be an exception to the rule.
LikeLike
But then again, why should the godless spend time on creepy people who think they have a superior worldview. A worldview that is purportedly based on whimsical stories that bear no resemblance to real life.
LikeLike
In reply to your first sentence: Christian charity seeks the good of one’s neighbour and thus engages them in the things that matter. Are you suggesting that secular charity does not and should not do the same? Why does it not engage in serious debate to disabuse these people of their ‘superior worldview’? Truly, Christianity is different from secularism.
Presumably, if you think it is creepy for Christians to think that they have a superior worldview, you would not make the same mistake yourself and thus you don’t think that the secular worldview is superior to the Christian one. Even if you did, I wouldn’t describe it as creepy. If you engaged with the godly you might lose your sense of creepiness. Fear is often a product of the unknown.
On time: truly it is a precious commodity but God has given you plenty of time to investigate His claims.
At least you have engaged with me. You asked, Why? I have answered you. Thanks.
LikeLike