Do "atheists" need a new term to call themselves?

[stiggy wiggy]

Any evidence to support this claim?

Sure! The remarkable fulfillment.

Any evidence to support this claim?

Sure! The verses in Isaiah 53 which were fulfilled.

So do you if you think it's about Jesus.

Which verses do you need to be explained? And tell me how it could be about Israel.

Would you like me to start a new topic addressed to you in which we debate the issue, verse by verse? Yes or no?

 

[positive atheist]

Not quite the same. Positive atheists make the claim that no God exists. Not simply that they have found no reason to believe in any proposed God.

That is what he said in post #1, that he has reasons and evidence to conclude god does not exist. Although there are no standard categories for atheism many people would recognize a person who affirmatively states "god does not exist" as a positive atheist. "truth seeker" and "rational atheist" are vague. It is strange though that he claims to believe god does not exist but is unwilling to say SteveB is wrong.

 

[CrowCross]

How could fulfilled prophecy prove God's non-existence?

It proves the God of the bible existence.

 

[Caroljeen]

That is what he said in post #1, that he has reasons and evidence to conclude god does not exist. Although there are no standard categories for atheism many people would recognize a person who affirmatively states "god does not exist" as a positive atheist. "truth seeker" and "rational atheist" are vague. It is strange though that he claims to believe god does not exist but is unwilling to say SteveB is wrong.

Why not call himself agnostic?

 

[positive atheist]

Why not call himself agnostic?

That is certainly one possibility. I was surprised that he claimed to have "reason and evidence (critical thinking) to come to the conclusion that no Gods of the religious variety have objective existence." but then when SteveB started slinging biblical quotes at him he didn't disagree. Who knows. He will have to say.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's not my life or eternity being discussed here.

OK. What is the issue you would like to discuss?

Bingo.

Why say that when I tell you I'm not sure if what you posted from John is true?

Rather curious thing about this, your claim of being a truth seeker, and the nature of truth.

Ask away! As a truth seeker I answer all relevant, sensible, polite questions to the best of my ability.

Isaac Newton claimed many things regarding Truth.
Maybe he didn't actually say such things!

I'm not sure about Newton, but many famous people do get misquoted. I don't see why Jesus must be different in that regard.

Abraham Lincoln claimed some things regarding Truth.
Maybe he didn't actually make such claims

How do you know what Lincoln said?

Albert Einstein made comments about the truth.
Perhaps he too is lying, or at the least, cannot be trusted to have said anything about Truth.

Actually, Einstein got some things about quantum mechanics wrong. You are appealing to authority. That's a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you should take the time to learn.

I have learned that Bible scholars disagree over who wrote John. You should be aware of that controversy.

Testimony of those who knew him. Chain of ownership and those who knew him.

Again, that doesn't prove who wrote John.

You didn't actually read the quote did you!

I did read it, of course. What does it have to do with who wrote John?

Indeed. The question is one of veracity.
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, he can be dismissed as yet another wannabe.
But if he did actually rise from the dead, it seems that what he says is of infinite and eternal importance.

I don't agree with your logic. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then it doesn't follow that what He allegedly said has any such importance.

By what basis would you be able to determine if he was actually telling you the truth?
Do you possess some objectively verifiable methods to accomplish this?

If you want to believe everything the Bible says, then you should answer these questions for yourself. As for me, I already said I don't know if what it says is true.

Oh, I do, have, and continue to.
The question here is how would you know if something is true or not?

As far as what people say is concerned, modern records including radio and TV often work well to know what people have said. Sadly, the Bible was written in the dark and distant past and is not so credible.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There is already a term for that - positive atheist.

"Rational atheist" I think is positively more descriptive. I try to employ logic in all my thinking and not just in religious matters, so "rational" is an appropriate modifier.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why would you think that? Becoming an atheist doesn't automatically make you a better person.

The IIDB atheists refuse to admit the truth about what they've said even if I post direct quotations and link to the posts where they originally said it. So if anything it appears that becoming an atheist might well be a step in the wrong direction morally speaking.

I would have to strongly disagree with that. Most of the atheists here are negative atheists and they certainly are not irrational.

I don't know about most atheists, but the IIDB atheists are whacked (for the most part).

You are free to describe yourself however you want but if you believe you have good reasons to believe god does not exist and you are willing to affirmatively state god does not exist (take on the burden of proof), then most people will recognize you as a positive atheist.

If you are a positive atheist why not post some of your arguments. I'd like to see them.

All I've ever seen from any supposed God is what people might say and do. So I conclude that God has been made up.

 

[Tiburon]

That is what he said in post #1, that he has reasons and evidence to conclude god does not exist. Although there are no standard categories for atheism many people would recognize a person who affirmatively states "god does not exist" as a positive atheist. "truth seeker" and "rational atheist" are vague. It is strange though that he claims to believe god does not exist but is unwilling to say SteveB is wrong.

But he's not claiming "god does not exist". He doesn't seem to be willing to go that far.
He is only willing to "come to the conclusion that no Gods of the religious variety have objective existence."

 

[SteveB]

OK. What is the issue you would like to discuss?

We're already discussing it
YOUR life and eternal destination.

Why say that when I tell you I'm not sure if what you posted from John is true?

Because you aren't saying that you have done anything to learn if it's true.

Ask away! As a truth seeker I answer all relevant, sensible, polite questions to the best of my ability.

And what happens when the questions feel rude, irrelevant and nonsense to you?


Pro 14:12 WEB There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Pro 18:17 WEB He who pleads his cause first seems right— until another comes and questions him.
Pro 1:7 WEB The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge, but the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.
Pro 12:15 WEB The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who is wise listens to counsel.

Pro 14:9 WEB Fools mock at making atonement for sins, but among the upright there is good will.

There's a lot more, but I think this suffices.

I'm not sure about Newton, but many famous people do get misquoted. I don't see why Jesus must be different in that regard.

How do you know what Lincoln said?

Actually, Einstein got some things about quantum mechanics wrong. You are appealing to authority. That's a logical fallacy.

So, unless their understanding of reality matches yours, they're not reliable?

I have learned that Bible scholars disagree over who wrote John. You should be aware of that controversy.

What makes you think I'm not aware of any controversial topics regarding the Bible?

Again, that doesn't prove who wrote John.

But apparently you actually know that he didn't write John, and Jesus didn't actually state it.

I did read it, of course. What does it have to do with who wrote John?

You're the one who's chosen to believe that John didn't write it.
not because you actually know he didn't.

I don't agree with your logic.

What makes you think i needed your agreement?
i was taught to test all things, to despise what is evil, and cling to what is good.

If Jesus was raised from the dead, then it doesn't follow that what He allegedly said has any such importance.

Why should someone who claims to be God incarnate, died to pay the penalty for our sin and then rose from the dead, has come to save us from our sin be ignored?

If you want to believe everything the Bible says, then you should answer these questions for yourself.

How do you know I haven't already answered them?
I've been learning to follow Jesus, and reading the bible and engaging YHVH on his terms and conditions for the past 46-1/2 years.

As for me, I already said I don't know if what it says is true.

But are you already deciding that you don't want to know?
Have you already decided that it's not possible to know?

As far as what people say is concerned, modern records including radio and TV often work well to know what people have said.

So unless it's reported on modern records and technology, it can't be known?
Seems like you're confused about reality.
99% of human civilization occurred before modern records and technology.
This sounds like anything beyond your ability to reason is impossible.

Sadly, the Bible was written in the dark and distant past and is not so credible.

Hmm....
So you're simply in denial about human history.

You're not a truth seeker.

 

[Torin]

Hello again!

One group of atheists I find to be especially disturbing are the atheists at IIDB. They're overwhelmingly in favor of "free suicide" they claim out of compassion, yet they will attack anybody who even suggests disagreement. They even attack any science that casts doubts on their beliefs. I think many of them are obvious liars too. And here I thought I left all that behind when I left religion.

I'm not too familiar with the IIDB atheists, although I've visited the website before. It is intended as a debate forum, though, and most of the members are left leaning. It's not surprising that they would favor free euthanasia, or that they would argue with you when you tried to make objections, "scientific" or otherwise. (I would need to read the exchanges firsthand to evaluate their honesty.)

More to the point, can we agree that it's unfair to generalize about atheists as a group from atheists on the IIDB forums? That is probably an idiosyncratic sample.

Jesus, as he's portrayed in the Gospels, is obviously a very independent thinker which generally is good.

My recollection of the Gospels is hazy, but I don't agree that Jesus was a "very independent thinker." Why do you think this?

He also takes the side of the poor over the rich.

True.

To call some people "rational atheists" I think is very fair and accurate. A rational atheist doubts the objective existence of Gods based on reason. Hence, she is rational (uses reason) to conclude no God(s) exist. Obviously, not all atheists are so rational, and to them their atheism rests on "a lack of belief" which can have a very irrational basis. I should emphasize that to call some people rational atheists is not to say they are good or smart or somehow more "right" than other atheists--but only that they base their atheism on reason rather than something else.

You can't build your belief that positive atheism is rational into your term for the position, though. That's an illegitimate rhetorical tactic, as I explained previously. You should give your position a neutral name like "positive atheism" and then argue that positive atheism is rational.

Again, I'm not saying that rational atheism is of higher quality than other kinds of atheism but that rational atheists make use of reason to base their atheism upon.

That's a distinction without a difference, in my view.

So let me close by reiterating that "truth seeker" is my preferred term to label myself. I live not to doubt or deny or ignore God but to seek whatever is true about her and everything else.

That is admirable! I also consider myself a truth seeker in your sense.

 

[positive atheist]

"Rational atheist" I think is positively more descriptive. I try to employ logic in all my thinking and not just in religious matters, so "rational" is an appropriate modifier.

Although there are atheists who believe in the supernatural I think atheists are overwhelmingly rationalists so calling oneself a "rational atheist" will seem redundant to most people. But you are free to define yourself as you want.

The IIDB atheists refuse to admit the truth about what they've said even if I post direct quotations and link to the posts where they originally said it. So if anything it appears that becoming an atheist might well be a step in the wrong direction morally speaking.

I wouldn't agree with that. When I became an atheist it had no effect on my moral values. If anything I valued life more because I had to accept this is the only life I get and it goes by quickly. I think a lot of atheists who believe (and it is odd that I have to say this) that dead people really are dead, gone, and not coming back, realize that every day of our lives makes a difference. Today is the only today I will ever get. I might as well try to be happy, not let minor things bother me, and make a positive difference in someone's life.

I don't know about most atheists, but the IIDB atheists are whacked (for the most part).

I don't know anything about IIDB. If they are whacked it is not a good look for atheists or atheism. I know most of the negative atheists here are not irrational. They are quite rational.

All I've ever seen from any supposed God is what people might say and do. So I conclude that God has been made up.

Do you believe you have reasons or evidence to affirmatively state "God does not exist?
Or do you simply see no valid reasons or evidence to believe god exists so you refrain from believing god exists?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I am somewhat confused as to what your point of view is. First you reach a conclusion that no gods exist. Then when SteveB gives you his usual jesus-says-come-to-me-script, you respond "I don't know if what you just quoted from John is true." Maybe we can help you determine what you believe.

I'm not completely sure what I do or do not believe about God. It seems like I may have some belief in God in the dark recesses of my mind. Belief seems to me to be very emotional and unstable, so that's why I try not to describe my point of view as belief. I prefer to base my position on what I see as good reason and evidence--something I can think about rather than merely feel.

Do you agree with any of these statements:
1. I have good reasons to believe god does not exist.

Yes. Of course.

2. I have no good reasons to believe god exists...

That is in my estimation correct.

...so I refrain from believing in god.

Not really. I actually can't "refrain from believing" because I cannot choose what to believe or doubt.

3. I am not sure wether god exists.

I'm not completely sure God doesn't exist.

4. I believe wether nor not god exists is unknowable.

It appears that yes, the existence of God is unknowable because theologians describe their God as essentially unknowable. For example, how can we possibly know if God has always existed or will always exist? I don't think we can. And on the other side of the coin it looks like God is unfalsifiable because theologians can change God at the drop of a hat to slip out of logical difficulties. They also tend to squirrel God away where nobody can check Him out.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We're already discussing it
YOUR life and eternal destination.

I didn't intend to discuss that issue, but if you insist we can. It appears that none of us exist forever and that death is the end of our consciousnesses. I assume you disagree with that.

Because you aren't saying that you have done anything to learn if it's true.

Why do you say that? I've been scrutinizing religious claims for most of my life.

And what happens when the questions feel rude, irrelevant and nonsense to you?

I'll often just move on. I try not to waste my time with troublemakers.

Pro 14:12 WEB There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Pro 18:17 WEB He who pleads his cause first seems right— until another comes and questions him.
Pro 1:7 WEB The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge, but the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.
Pro 12:15 WEB The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who is wise listens to counsel.

Pro 14:9 WEB Fools mock at making atonement for sins, but among the upright there is good will.

There's a lot more, but I think this suffices.

I do hope you aren't so arrogant as to exempt yourself from those pearls of wisdom. As for me, I try to keep an eye on myself making sure I don't act foolishly. It's what Jesus taught us to do.

So, unless their understanding of reality matches yours, they're not reliable?

You didn't answer my question: How do you know what Lincoln said? It's only just to treat others the way you want to be treated, and you obviously want me to answer your questions which I have honestly done. So please answer my questions.

What makes you think I'm not aware of any controversial topics regarding the Bible?

You appear to be unaware of the controversy over the authorship of John, for one thing.

But apparently you actually know that he didn't write John, and Jesus didn't actually state it.

I'm not sure about either one. I don't know how anybody can know who wrote John or what Jesus said. I'm just being humble.

You're the one who's chosen to believe that John didn't write it.
not because you actually know he didn't.

I don't believe John didn't write the gospel attributed to him. I don't know what John wrote.

What makes you think i needed your agreement?

I never said you do. I just respectfully disagree with your logic.

i was taught to test all things, to despise what is evil, and cling to what is good.

That's basically what I do as a truth seeker.

Why should someone who claims to be God incarnate, died to pay the penalty for our sin and then rose from the dead, has come to save us from our sin be ignored?

I never said to ignore Jesus, of course. I'm just explaining that as far as I know being raised from the dead doesn't bestow knowledge on the person raised.

How do you know I haven't already answered them?

I didn't say that. You keep reading in to what I'm posting. If you read the Bible that way, then you'll get the Bible wrong too.

I've been learning to follow Jesus, and reading the bible and engaging YHVH on his terms and conditions for the past 46-1/2 years.

Then I'm left wondering why you treat others so harshly and unjustly.

But are you already deciding that you don't want to know?

No. Of course I want to know if what the Bible says is true. Again, you seem to be interrogating me like you want to find something to hang me on.

Have you already decided that it's not possible to know?

It appears that way. I'm only being honest never pretending to know what I don't know.

So unless it's reported on modern records and technology, it can't be known?

I wouldn't say that, but obviously record keeping in antiquity was not nearly as reliable as it is today.

Seems like you're confused about reality.

Reality can be confusing, that's true. Is that meant to be an insult?

99% of human civilization occurred before modern records and technology.
This sounds like anything beyond your ability to reason is impossible.

I don't get your logic here.

Hmm....
So you're simply in denial about human history.

You're not a truth seeker.

And you're not a true follower of Christ.

 

[JAG]

"Do "atheists" need a new term to call themselves?"__Unknown Soldier​

You put atheists in quotes - "atheists" -- that is a good and truthful way to phrase it because:

  - There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them. I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true. Here they are , , , Romans 1:19-20 Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation...

forums.carm.org

Does God know more about what "atheists" REALLY believe than the "atheists" do?


YES.

(and so do I -- because I read what the Sovereign God said about "atheists.")


_________________________



Scot me up, Beamy.

JAG

[]

 

[Whatsisface]

"Do "atheists" need a new term to call themselves?"__Unknown Soldier​

You put atheists in quotes - "atheists" -- that is a good and truthful way to phrase it because:

  - There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them. I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true. Here they are , , , Romans 1:19-20 Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation...

forums.carm.org

Does God know more about what "atheists" REALLY believe than the "atheists" do?


YES.

(and so do I -- because I read what the Sovereign God said about "atheists.")


_________________________



Scot me up, Beamy.

JAG

[]

This seems the key point from your link …

5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.

Please fill in premise 2.

1. There is a universe.
2.
C. Therefore God.

 

[SteveB]

I didn't intend to discuss that issue, but if you insist we can.

I'm not the one insisting anything.
You claim to be a truth seeker.
Jesus said that He IS Truth, and everyone who is OF the Truth hears his voice.

It appears that none of us exist forever and that death is the end of our consciousnesses.

It appears.... and where do you get this appearance from?

I assume you disagree with that.

I disagree because the Creator says we will live forever. It'll be one place or another.
He's inviting us to join him.
He says the other place was not prepared for humans.

Why do you say that?

Comparing your expressly stated ideas to the Bible.

I've been scrutinizing religious claims for most of my life.

perhaps, but based on what you are saying, it's pretty clear that whatever you do believe, you have no foundation upon which you are building your life.
What do you do when life hits the fan, and spews cra8 in your face?
Jesus said that the only way we'd be able to survive the cruelties of life intact is to learn, and keep his teachings. Matthew 7.

I'll often just move on. I try not to waste my time with troublemakers.

I do hope you aren't so arrogant as to exempt yourself from those pearls of wisdom. As for me, I try to keep an eye on myself making sure I don't act foolishly. It's what Jesus taught us to do.

You didn't answer my question: How do you know what Lincoln said?

I don't. I never met, or knew him. But at the same time, those who did, documented his comments and actions.

It's only just to treat others the way you want to be treated, and you obviously want me to answer your questions which I have honestly done. So please answer my questions.

How's that working out for you?
It's curious that you think that alone is sufficient for life.

You appear to be unaware of the controversy over the authorship of John, for one thing.

sounds like you're assuming that.
I've been learning to follow Jesus since 1977.
I learned early on that there were questions about the authorship of John.
It's ironic, considering that it's the one gospel we have a copy of that's less than 30 years after the gospel was originally written.
And it seems pretty clear that the problem people have with John is the content.
it's what i would consider the most powerful gospel written.
Jesus is God incarnate.

The Historical Reliability of John - Apologetics

By Craig L. Blomberg Of the four New Testament Gospels, the one that least resembles the … The Historical Reliability of John Read More »

www.namb.net

I'm not sure about either one. I don't know how anybody can know who wrote John or what Jesus said. I'm just being humble.

Humble?
Humility is yielding to YHVH and acknowledging he is objective Truth and has given us his only begotten son to save us from our sin.
rejecting Jesus is the antithesis of Humility.
rejection of Jesus is the epitome of arrogance and pride.

humble is recognizing that you are not YHVH and are in need of his eternal perspective to see life more clearly.

I don't believe John didn't write the gospel attributed to him. I don't know what John wrote.

john wrote the gospel of John.

I never said you do. I just respectfully disagree with your logic.

that is indeed your prerogative.
The gospel of Jesus is merely an invitation to engage YHVH on his terms and conditions so you may have eternal life.

That's basically what I do as a truth seeker.

Yet Jesus is quite clear that if you are a genuine truth seeker, you will come to him.

I never said to ignore Jesus, of course. I'm just explaining that as far as I know being raised from the dead doesn't bestow knowledge on the person raised.

So, what part of the resurrection do you think would leave someone without knowledge and awareness?

I didn't say that. You keep reading in to what I'm posting.

I'm asking questions and making observations.
no reading into anything.

If you read the Bible that way, then you'll get the Bible wrong too.

really? So I'm not actually allowed to learn, understand and know YHVH?
Why not?

Then I'm left wondering why you treat others so harshly and unjustly.

harshly and unjustly?
How important is your life to you?
What is your life worth to you?
If your house is on fire, and you're sound asleep, just how harshly do you want me to drag you out of it to save your life and the lives of your family members?

Jud 1:22-23 WEB 22 On some have compassion, making a distinction, 23 and some save, snatching them out of the fire with fear, hating even the clothing stained by the flesh.

Jesus came to save us from the consequences for our sin.
Those who do not believe in Jesus will perish, and spend their eternity in the lake of fire.

Do you want to perish? Do you want to spend your eternity in the lake of fire?

No. Of course I want to know if what the Bible says is true.

then come follow Jesus.

Again, you seem to be interrogating me like you want to find something to hang me on.

no. I want you to realise there are consequences for refusing to follow Jesus.

It appears that way. I'm only being honest never pretending to know what I don't know.

Not knowing is one thing. Choosing to remain not knowing is something entirely different.

I wouldn't say that, but obviously record keeping in antiquity was not nearly as reliable as it is today.

why?
over the past several years I've discovered that the news media is pretty unreliable.
i refuse to watch several news outlets anymore because of their clearly biased take on the news.
the president has decided that people who love life, family, children and God are terrorists.
my senator has called people like me extremists...

Reality can be confusing, that's true. Is that meant to be an insult?

The question i have is... why is reality confusing in your opinion?
oowe read in a number of places in the Bible that those who trust in Jesus and have reverence for YHVH have a good understanding and clarity of thought.

it's long been taught in the churches I've attended that those who know YHVH's Word and refuse to do it experience confusion about life because they don't do YHVH's will.

the Bible also teaches that we have a personal enemy who seeks to destroy us. All he has to do is keep us deceived until the moment we die.

I don't get your logic here.

No logic required.
it's a simple fact.
99% of human experience occurred before the advent of modern technology and record keeping devices.
your claim that history isn't reliable because it wasn't recorded using modern technology makes it sound like you're in denial about history.

And you're not a true follower of Christ.

Whose follower do you think I am?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Do "atheists" need a new term to call themselves?"__Unknown Soldier​

You put atheists in quotes - "atheists" --

The reason I used the quotation marks was because I'm discussing the term used for atheists and not atheists themselves. If I was referring to the people instead of the term, then I would not have used the quotation marks.

that is a good and truthful way to phrase it because:

  - There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist

My view is that all men KNOW there is a God that created them. I have strong Biblical reasons for believing this to be true. Here they are , , , Romans 1:19-20 Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation...

forums.carm.org

I'm not completely sure that anybody is a "pure" atheist having no belief at all in any God(s). Belief I think is something we might not be fully aware of.

What we know can also be tricky. Psychologists know that people can sometimes deny obvious truths.

Does God know more about what "atheists" REALLY believe than the "atheists" do?


YES.

(and so do I -- because I read what the Sovereign God said about "atheists.")

Then please share some of that divine knowledge with the forum. To be convincing, it should be something that only God and no person without God's revelation can know.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm sure you like the term "truth seeker."

I think it's accurate.

It has a nice pretentious quality to it.

That was never my intention. No person needs to be special to seek truth. Anybody can seek truth.

You seem to have a need to feel special.

Is there something wrong with wanting to feel special? It's my goal to make truth seeking so common that there's nothing special about it.

I don't 'base' my atheism on "a lack of belief in God(s)." That is atheism.

I'm confused. If you don't base your atheism on lack of belief in God(s), then how can lack of belief in God(s) be atheism? You seem to be saying that you don't base your atheism in atheism.

You may wish to separate yourself from those atheists who have given no real thought to the issue, and that is a valid desire.

I know few atheists so I'm already separated from them.

I don't know that terms like rational and irrational really help. Maybe considered and unconsidered? Though perhaps they don't have the same bite to them.

By "rational" I'm referring to the use of logic you might find in a typical text on the subject. It's not meant to boast but to describe.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not the one insisting anything.
You claim to be a truth seeker.
Jesus said that He IS Truth, and everyone who is OF the Truth hears his voice.


It appears.... and where do you get this appearance from?


I disagree because the Creator says we will live forever. It'll be one place or another.
He's inviting us to join him.
He says the other place was not prepared for humans.


Comparing your expressly stated ideas to the Bible.


perhaps, but based on what you are saying, it's pretty clear that whatever you do believe, you have no foundation upon which you are building your life.
What do you do when life hits the fan, and spews cra8 in your face?
Jesus said that the only way we'd be able to survive the cruelties of life intact is to learn, and keep his teachings. Matthew 7.

I don't. I never met, or knew him. But at the same time, those who did, documented his comments and actions.


How's that working out for you?
It's curious that you think that alone is sufficient for life.

sounds like you're assuming that.
I've been learning to follow Jesus since 1977.
I learned early on that there were questions about the authorship of John.
It's ironic, considering that it's the one gospel we have a copy of that's less than 30 years after the gospel was originally written.
And it seems pretty clear that the problem people have with John is the content.
it's what i would consider the most powerful gospel written.
Jesus is God incarnate.

The Historical Reliability of John - Apologetics

By Craig L. Blomberg Of the four New Testament Gospels, the one that least resembles the … The Historical Reliability of John Read More »

www.namb.net

Humble?
Humility is yielding to YHVH and acknowledging he is objective Truth and has given us his only begotten son to save us from our sin.
rejecting Jesus is the antithesis of Humility.
rejection of Jesus is the epitome of arrogance and pride.

humble is recognizing that you are not YHVH and are in need of his eternal perspective to see life more clearly.


john wrote the gospel of John.


that is indeed your prerogative.
The gospel of Jesus is merely an invitation to engage YHVH on his terms and conditions so you may have eternal life.


Yet Jesus is quite clear that if you are a genuine truth seeker, you will come to him.


So, what part of the resurrection do you think would leave someone without knowledge and awareness?

I'm asking questions and making observations.
no reading into anything.


really? So I'm not actually allowed to learn, understand and know YHVH?
Why not?



harshly and unjustly?
How important is your life to you?
What is your life worth to you?
If your house is on fire, and you're sound asleep, just how harshly do you want me to drag you out of it to save your life and the lives of your family members?

Jud 1:22-23 WEB 22 On some have compassion, making a distinction, 23 and some save, snatching them out of the fire with fear, hating even the clothing stained by the flesh.

Jesus came to save us from the consequences for our sin.
Those who do not believe in Jesus will perish, and spend their eternity in the lake of fire.

Do you want to perish? Do you want to spend your eternity in the lake of fire?




then come follow Jesus.


no. I want you to realise there are consequences for refusing to follow Jesus.



Not knowing is one thing. Choosing to remain not knowing is something entirely different.

That is bad.

why?
over the past several years I've discovered that the news media is pretty unreliable.
i refuse to watch several news outlets anymore because of their clearly biased take on the news.
the president has decided that people who love life, family, children and God are terrorists.
my senator has called people like me extremists...

Just don't attack the US capital please.

The question i have is... why is reality confusing in your opinion?
oowe read in a number of places in the Bible that those who trust in Jesus and have reverence for YHVH have a good understanding and clarity of thought.

A good understanding of what?

it's long been taught in the churches I've attended that those who know YHVH's Word and refuse to do it experience confusion about life because they don't do YHVH's will.

Yes. I've seen people do that.

the Bible also teaches that we have a personal enemy who seeks to destroy us. All he has to do is keep us deceived until the moment we die.

But what if that deceiver is the Bible? I do hope you realize that anybody can be a deceiver and that includes those who preach that others are deceivers.

No logic required.
it's a simple fact.
99% of human experience occurred before the advent of modern technology and record keeping devices.
your claim that history isn't reliable because it wasn't recorded using modern technology makes it sound like you're in denial about history.

What's wrong with my being critical of history? Do you accept all of history including the history that tells us that your religion arrived thousands of years after other religions were invented?

Whose follower do you think I am?

I don't know, but I do know that the Bible commands Christ's followers to love their enemies. You treat them with contempt.