ASK A CHRISTIAN (respectful debate and questions welcomed)

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Matt Slick "A fact is an

Matt Slick "A fact is an abstraction and cannot be tangible."

Sorry but this sounds like nonsense to me, could you give three examples of facts that are abstract, and not tangible?

UrbanSpurgeon's picture
1) Just to talk

1) Just to talk
2) I will refer to my answers tot he same question from before
3) I dont

CyberLN's picture
Urban, you wrote, “If you

Urban, you wrote, “If you would like to debate, I encourage you to do so; just as long as you remain respectful.“

Define ‘respectful’.

algebe's picture
Why do you find Christianity

Why do you find Christianity more believable than Islam? Are you planning any further conversions? Hinduism perhaps? Are you even reading these responses?

UrbanSpurgeon's picture
Sorry for the delay.

Sorry for the delay.

Your question actually points to a big underlying question or thought: Why do people choose one life over the other? I chose Islam because I hated Christianity. I became agnostic because I came to a point where I was tired of religion in general and had to admit that I really didn't believe any of the stuff I wanted to be true. I come Christian because of God. The reason why I framed that last sentence that way is to be able to refer to my responses from before to similar questions from before.

But no other conversions will be taking place. lol

Ratburn's picture
well, the fact that you were

well, the fact that you were Muslim, then agnostic, then Christian may indicate that you yourself are very unsure about the truth regarding religion. It means at one point, you took the Quran for its word. Then, you probably questioned your religious beliefs, and decided that you do not know the answer, so your belief became somewhat undetermined. Now, looking for some sort of answer, you have stumbled upon Christianity. First, you would need to demonstrate that the universe was created by an intelligent thinking agent. Then, you have to demonstrate that this thinking agent is still alive, and has the capability of interacting with humans. Once all that is demonstrated, you are still not finished-- you need to then determine which religion out of the thousands of religions is correct (if any one faith is correct at all). Remember, even if there is a creator, it does not mean that he/she/it cares about what you practice. Therefore, although this may sound blunt, I think this may be a useless thread from you as I doubt you will present an argument we haven't heard before. If you can prove me wrong, then go ahead.

UrbanSpurgeon's picture
Please refer to my response

Please refer to my response to a similar question from Algebe

Tin-Man's picture
Personally, I find it

Personally, I find it interesting that you would offer to answer questions about Christianity in a group whose members in most cases know more about the bible and Christianity than a majority of self-proclaimed Christians out there. Thanks for the offer, though.

jonthecatholic's picture
Do atheists really know more

Do atheists really know more about the Bible? From what I’ve seen so far, most atheists know what the Bible says but they don’t know how to read the Bible. Most don’t even know what the Bible is or where it came from. Granted many Christians don’t know as well. Lol

Tin-Man's picture
Well, JoC, I will be

Well, JoC, I will be perfectly honest with you and freely admit I am by no means any type of bible scholar or religion expert. However, I do happen to know enough about the bible and what I was taught as a child to come to the conclusion it does not make any sense. Moreover, having studied and explored various other religions over the past few years, I have determined that it is absolutely absurd - and borderline insane - to believe that a god who is supposedly PERFECT and all-knowing and all-powerful would or could allow his "perfect message to mankind" to be so totally corrupted and misinterpreted as it is today and as it always has been. Now, keep in mind, I come to these conclusions using the brain and reasoning skills that you would claim were given to me by your god. And if he is perfect and all-knowing and all-powerful and truly and sincerely wants to have a "personal relationship" with me, then why would he allow me to reason and think for myself?
One other little item. Yes, just like most Christians, there are many atheists who do not really know the bible that well. So? I don't know diddley-much about the Quran or the Tripitakas or the Torah or any of the other dozens of holy books out there, either. But you don't seem to mind that I do not believe in any of those other religions. Why do you not believe in any of those other religions? Have you read all/any of their holy books? Do you know how to read any of those other holy books "the right way?" And, just in case it has slipped your mind, there are many men and women (on this site and elsewhere) who were once highly faithful Christians UNTIL...... they started studying the bible in-depth in order to be more faithful, but ended up becoming atheists as a result. Just sayin'.....

jonthecatholic's picture
It’s true that God does want

It’s true that God does want to have a personal relationship with everyone. But only a truly good God will never force anyone to do so. That’s what you’d call a tyrant.

We have to seek Him through our own free will and reason (as you say).

True I haven’t read any other holy books the right way but the fact is, none of the other world religions have the “right way” to read their holy book. Islam doesn’t have a central authority the way Catholicism does. Neither does Buddhism. And neither does Protestantism.

algebe's picture
@JoC: "But only a truly good

@JoC: "But only a truly good God will never force anyone to do so."

What's the punishment for those who decline god's offer of friendship? I was taught that disbelievers faced everlasting punishment in the fires of hell. That sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

Don't you think the central authority of Catholicism is rather tainted?

jonthecatholic's picture
There are two “options” for

There are two “options” for the afterlife. Either we spend eternity with God (heaven) or apart from Him (hell). If you choose to be with God in the afterlife, then you follow his commands, love your neighbor etc. if you don’t want to spend eternity with Him in the afterlife, then you don’t follow his commands. God won’t force you to love Him how He loves you.

As to the central authority of the RCC, I’ll answer it below

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - There are two “options”

JoC - There are two “options” for the afterlife.

It's amazing that such a short sentence can contain begging the question and a false dilemma; but you managed to pull it off!

algebe's picture
@JoC" "apart from Him (hell)"

@JoC" "apart from Him (hell)"

And what is hell like in your theology?

mickron88's picture
hahahah... i laughed at this

hahahah... i laughed at this statement, how ignorant to think that a loving god will still send you to hell if you don't love him back! what a jealous selfish puny god you believe in.. if you love your neighbor and do charity and stuffs like that and not love god will you go to hell?

unbelievably brainless.. oh my fucking god, jesus fucking christ whats wrong with you?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
So the "right way" is to

So the "right way" is to acknowledge the pope as supreme arbiter? Then it all falls into place? Explain how that works please?

jonthecatholic's picture
Never said the pope. A

Never said the pope. A central authority which is the church that Jesus founded. Christians believe that Jesus was God. So the belief is that when he said he’d be with his church until the end of the age, he meant it. As he is God, He can guide his church into all truth.

The next part is recognizing which church is the one Jesus founded. And that’s the RCC.

algebe's picture
@JoC: "A central authority

@JoC: "A central authority which is the church that Jesus founded."

But how is that authority manifested? It's not god issuing Papal bulls and appointing cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. It's men. Fallible, human males.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Why is it you confuse

Why is it you confuse verbosity with an answer?

Jesus did not found any church. He didnt seem to like churches or temples. The early church was founded in Rome by Peter after humungous fights with Paul/Saul. The Roman Church was founded and regulated by Constantine.

The RCC has an infallible head honcho. The so called Descendant of Peter, In many ways Il Papa IS the church. Why cant you just say that? According to doctrine the pope is divinely guided and thus infallible. The RCC and the Pope are indivisible.Anything else is heresy and get you up for judgement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly titled the Inquisition).

next point: to follow your reasoning ONLY if I become a Catholic and acknowledge the Pope as supreme earthly arbiter can I hope to "read" the bible . Will that make the strictures in the bible moral? Will it make slavery, rape, forced marriage and mob stoning objectively and suddenly subjectively moral? Or will my magical 'catholic' reading make those verses suddenly change meaning?

Catholics have no right to claim morality; subjectively or objectively as long as they cling to that doctrine.

UrbanSpurgeon's picture
Jesus did not found the roman

Jesus did not found the roman catholic church. Catholic means "general" in Latin and it seems like you're being very specific.

Plus, "Praying to Mary, celebrating the Mass, venerating the Pope—you won’t find those doctrines in the Bible."

Tin-Man's picture
JoC: "True I haven’t read

JoC: "True I haven’t read any other holy books the right way but the fact is, none of the other world religions have the “right way” to read their holy book."

*rolling eyes* Ugh.... I do hope I am not the only one who sees the absolute absurdity of that statement. If you haven't read the other world religion books, then how do you know whether or not there is a "right way" to read them. And - as I am fairly sure others have pointed out so many times before - if your "perfect" and "all-knowing" god truly wants us to believe in him and follow his word, then why write such a muddled up mess of a book that would require ANY right or wrong way to read it in the first place? Seems to me he would make things simple and straight-forward, but then I suppose that would have been too easy. Thank goodness, though, we have mental contortionists like you to teach us stiff-minded simpletons the proper way to "interpret" such a perfect work of literary genius.

Oh, and you are still tap-dancing around the question of "why are all those other religions any less valid than your own?"

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
shit you mean opening the

shit you mean opening the book, looking at the first page and starting to read isn't the way to do it? What's the correct way to "read the bible" then?

I would be very surprised if you knew the exact origins of the "bible" as to my knowledge no one has come up with definitive origin. Do enlighten me.

Sky Pilot's picture


Do you know what the real Ten Commandments are?

Do you know when the 14 books were deleted from the Bible?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
oh please enlighten us...our

oh please enlighten us...our ignorance can only be alleviated by your flame of knowledge...oh btw, please include verifiable sources, otherwise you know...its bullshit.

jonthecatholic's picture
I’ve seen your 10

I’ve seen your 10 commandments and they’re wrong. No church sees those as the 10. The 14 books you mentioned need some explaining.

Not all of those 14 were ever part of scripture. Some like the prayer of manasseh were included in the printed Bible as part of the apocrypha section (not inspired) but were still useful for teaching the faith. 7 books and parts of daniel and esther which were part of scripture were moved by Martin Luther from scripture to the apocrypha section.

Sky Pilot's picture


The Ten Commandments is the easiest story in the entire Bible to understand because it is plainly laid out in an orderly linear fashion. Everyone likes to push the fake commandments in Exodus chapter 20 as the Ten Commandments. That's because they sound nice but they are simply spoken laws and were never written on stone tablets and called the Ten Commandments.

The real Ten Commandments are found in Exodus chapter 34 and they were written on stone tablets and called the Ten Commandments. People reject them because they are ethnocentric specific. The only one that people have consistently followed through the ages is the First Commandment, which says to invade other people's lands, destroy their religious artifacts, and to do ethnic cleansing.

You really need to know what the real Ten Commandments are because all of the biblical stories are based on one or more of them and illustrate what happens when people follow them or disobey them.

So here's a challenge for you: Read from Exodus chapter 19 all the way through Exodus chapter 34. Get a pen and some paper and make notes about what you read in your own words. Summarize the events described every several verses. You will discover that Moses went up and down the mountain a number of times. You will also see that he didn't get any stone tablets until Exodus 31:18. So at that point Moses lugged the two heavy stone tablets down the mountain, got pissed, and broke them. Then he chiseled out a new blank pair of stone tablets, lugged them up the mountain, had them engraved, and lugged then down once more. And in Exodus 34:28 it plainly says that those were the real Ten Commandments.

If you don't want to read the fairy tale then watch the videos =

Now, if you can't understand that then there's something fucking wrong with you.

Sushisnake's picture
"Do atheists really know more

"Do atheists really know more about the Bible? From what I’ve seen so far, most atheists know what the Bible says but they don’t know how to read the Bible."

Yes indeed. We forget you need to don rose coloured glasses first. We do the same thing in 3D movies, forget the bloody glasses. Everything just looks like an incoherent, blurry mess.

Sheldon's picture
JoC "From what I’ve seen so

JoC "From what I’ve seen so far, most atheists know what the Bible says but they don’t know how to read the Bible."
>>If you really think that knowing what something says isn't the purpose of reading it, then I'd say it is you who doesn't know how to read, do you apply this absurdly subjective method to all books, or just biblical texts that say what you don't like or want them to say?

JoC "Most don’t even know what the Bible is or where it came from."
>>Yes they do - Hitchens's razor applied / slash.

JoC "Granted many Christians don’t know as well. Lol"
>>Now in your opinion which is the less rational position, believing something you don't understand, or withholding belief until you can understand what it says, and assess the validity of it's claims?

jonthecatholic's picture
Of course I apply this to

Of course I apply this to everything I read. What people fail to do is apply what they unconsciously already know to religious texts. What do I mean?

Before we read a book, we usually look at the genre first or look why the author wrote a certain work. It puts our minds in the context of their text. Remember, the Bible isn’t a book.

Here’s a link which explains this very well.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.