Proud humbled
The agnostic is not one who says he doesn't know if there is a God. 'Not knowing' is 'ignorance'.
There is a movement to redefine terms, because claims to the original meanings are indefensible.
An 'Agnostic' makes the truth claim that there is no way to know God.
In order to know that that there is no way to know God, one must have tried all the ways there are to know God, eventhe ones you are unaware of. The priests of Baal woudl cut their bellies and arms to try to know Baal. Catholic monks would hide in the desert for years. Indian Budhist priests isolate themselves for years high in the mountains. Moslems trek to Mecca. Perhaps he is known by cutting of your little toe.
So effectively the true agnostic makes a claim to a truth that cannot be known, and is a liar.
If one is merely ignorant, then it is a claim about self, not of God.
Atheist denial of definition [∞]
Despite the attempts of comedian Ricky Gervais to redefine the term, an atheist is one who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being, not just one who does not believe. If you simply 'do not believe' then you are irrelevant. No one cares what you believe. You are uninteresting in that you merely parrot others in your disbelief; there is nothing compelling about your arguments.
It is not simply 'not believing' that is relevant. It is the truth claim that there is no God. Ricky capitalizes on the common Jesuit lie that there is no proof for God. So he claims that atheists are reasonable people who have not been presented with enough proof. God says otherwise:
▸ ± Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
▸ ± Ps 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.
The nearly identical repetition tells us that the atheist has sinned in flesh and spirit.
If one says, "I don't know..." then he is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
A true atheist is first a liar. One cannot know for sure there is no God unless he has searched everywhere simultaneously for him, since he may move or actively hide from him. He would have to be omnipresent, himself, or be God, to know there was no other God.
If the verses above were written by men, why would they confuse the knowledge of God with accusations of abominations. Those are different subjects, belief versus known behaviors. Because God is God, he also knows that there is no other God, and that those who make the truth claim that there is no God, have already done abominations.
Fearful Christians
Atheists parrot Ricky in the characature of Christians only being good because they are afraid of God. I'm sorry that their marriages are so terrible that they project this way. Christians do not fear making their wives angry, but love them. Why would we fear making God angry?
Why is Ricky so actively opposing God these days as many abominations are coming to light?
It is not disbelief that makes one an atheist, but the lie that he knows there is no God.
Atheists vs atheists https://www.facebook.com/reel/936727678146043
The claim that Christians believe in magic is a fail.
Magic is the belief that when God created the universe and used words to do so, that the power was in the words. This is a Jewish error which mistakes 'words' for the WORD. The Son of God is called the Word of God, and he created the universe at the command of the Father. The magician believes that if you know the word, you control the thing.
God is the one with power. He could have thought creation into existence, but from his name Elohim, we know he created it out of his love for us. He used words so that we could learn of him. Ge 1 is about creation, but more; it speaks of Christ. Jesus said it all spoke of him.
So my scoffing ignorant little friend. We do not believe in magic. We know the Eternal God. You can only stand on the outside looking in. You would be welcome, but not as long as you continue to think you are God and can make your own rules and judge the universe by your standard.
Bible written by people to control you with fear of hell [∞]
Please tell me which authors wanted to control you. Certainly the Nicolaitans want to control you, but they did not write the Bible.
John, in the book of Revelation even warned the church about them. They control you because you didn't read the Bible. You didn't heed the warning.
The main purpose of the Bible is that you might know God yourself. The third word of the Bible says so. The only command is to Love. Why would people wanting to control you write this? Obviously, the people who want to control you don't want you to know this. You think you are not being controlled, yet you parrot a comedian for your theology. They have controlled your mind with entertainment.
God wants to love you and you to love him. Satan doesn't want you to do that. Think about that.
You literally just made that up and then believe it. You are the one believing fairy tales.
A true Christian loves his enemy. When you say they hate, you answered your own statement. You said, "People who aren't Christians hate atheists".
We can see why. Atheists are pedantic liers who scoff and taunt. I expect you to, since self-described goo poo, blobs of mass, time, energy and chance haven't figured out how to create reason and logic. People who aren't Christian hate you because you parrot each other with no new thought. You follow Alinsky tactics which you know are designed to make decent people hate you and leave the venue to your control.
You relish being hated as demonstrated by your continuing use of Alinsky tactics. You want to have a victim status and continue to annoy everyone.
Christians have no evidence [∞]
This is a fail on several layers.
You presume you are God and the repository of all knowledge since you claim that no Christian anywhere, at any time has produced any evidence of God. This makes you insane, deluded or a liar.
It disqualifies you from scientific and rational discourse since it is more likely that you simply dismiss evidence in your selective data collection. Real scientists don't refuse to consider evidence from the opposing views. You don't get to say 9 out of 10 dentists agree. That is marketing not science. I'm sorry you were so severely impacted by such commercials as a child.
It shows you are lazy. Any child can g_gle "Christian apologetics" and spend a lifetime examining evidence. Since you are still alive, you have not exhausted that source.
It shows that you are insincere. You join a conversation ill prepared for actual dialog, but solely to taunt and scoff. What a boring life you have if this is the best thing to do with your time. Think about it: If there is no God, who cares? Let all the blobs of goo come and go; it doesn't matter. reason doesn't come from matter, energy, time and chance, so you have nothing reasonable to say, as evidenced in your comments.
Jesus not mentioned during his lifetime [∞]
Even when the atheist says something true, he wiggles to try to make it a lie.
Of course they didn't mention him.
1. He was flying under the radar of the Romans, it was not yet his time to die.
2. He was flying under the radar of the religious leaders. He told people not to tell who he was.
Then the atheist says: See, he told them not to say anything so why do you claim they wrote about him?
They did so AFTER the cross. The Romans wrote about him in their history; no I will not spoon feed you like an Alinsky infant. Do your own research. The Apostles wrote about him as the things he did and taught were brought to memory as they read the OT.
All of the gospels were written while the Apostles were still alive.
People have nothing to say but want their face on the big kissy cam:
David Denson: Bob Jones nop. Bob Jones: David Denson, contradiction is not argument https://youtu. be/evPZ-0UhL1E
Keith Seymour: Bob Jones bullshit
Richard Churchill: Bob Jones all of that was lies.
Claim: My expert is smarter or more knowledgeable than you.
Fallacy: Appeal to authority, with display of ignorance. The one claiming such does not know how smart I am nor my knowledge base. Propositional statements stand or fall with the evidence. Usually the scoffer will not hear evidence and/or has already decided the matter such that demands to provide evidence are merely designed to be a time waste as an Alinsky tactic.
"Which particular claim would you like to research. This is not the place for extended collaborative research. ... and yo mama.
No one has encountered God [∞]
Atheists continually come up with self-refuting arguments. Let's see if we can follow.
1. Declare with certainty there is no God.
2. Become God because you have declared your omniscience. You know God is nowhere without looking, and can't be known without trying, and hasn't been known by anyone anywhere at any time. Such hubris.
3. I have encountered you, so in your argument I have encountered God. A tiny God for sure. A teeny weenie god, if a god at all. A god who is not in control and gets angry and fearful. A god so itty bitty, that he imagines people he encounters in reel comments worship him in his magnificence. Yes a pitiful little God indeed that is really nothing but goo poo. He's not even the original puddle of mass, energy time and chance, but just the residual from a hot air bubble that separated him from it. The goo poofed.
This is an Alinsky tactic to frustrate the opponent by demand they do a lot more work than you do.
I have not consented to being your nanny to spoon feed you so you don't poke your eye out. I don't care if you believe or not. I have no burden of proof. You are a simple Alinsky scoffing parrot and have no interest in any proof given. When you demonstrate that you have done research to intelligently engage in conversation, come back. And please wipe off the goo poo. You can't get reason from a blob of goo consisting of matter, energy, time and chance.
Catholics claim legitimacy by way of inheritance of the priestly offices, and by the unity of the faith.
Both of these were broken in the Great Schism. East and West churches disagreed if the Spirit proceeded from the Father or the Father and the Son. The popes declared each other anathema, or cursed.
Catholicism lost any claim to truth when their unity was destroyed.
Now they have the reputation as those who deified Mary, conquered the laity, taught Balaamisms, and imported legalism from the Judaisers, killed those who didn't believe them, hid scriptures for 1200 years, and have a long history of pedophilia.
Any ritual you perform to receive grace is pagan. Baptism is the preaching of the cross in symbols, as are the other 'sacraments'. Nicolaitans (conquerors of the laity) want power over you, so they insist that they are the dispensers of grace in those rituals.
Islam claims to be the only true religion.
𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬:
- Taqiyya
- Kitman
- Tawriya
- Muruna
Because of these religious lies, you cannot trust anything Muslims say.
Satan is the Father of lies. Shame on Islam.
𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 77, Hadith Number 609.
Narated By Ibn ‘Abbas : I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the inner self wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.”
And then they are rewarded with an orgy in heaven.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧.
Sunan Abi Dawud 47:17
... The woman who buries alive her new-born girl and the girl who is buried alive both will go to Hell.
Islam is a lie and is of the flesh.
Before you listen to any Muslim pretending to know the Bible, ask them to show you Jesus in Ge 1.
Jews were proud of their heritage as children of Abraham with the distinction of their temple.
God humbled them several times by destroying the temple. The last time was in 70 A.D. Since then they have no claim to fame: No temple, no forgiveness without sacrifices, and they cannot call upon the name of God for deliverance since they refuse to say his name יהוה.
Judaism no long has a truth claim.
Mormon's claim to fame is that they have two testimonies of Jesus Christ: the Bible, and the Book of Mormon.
They claim the Book of Mormon is the fulfillment of Eze 37:19.
Though most Christians dismiss the claim that Ezekiel was prophesying another book, there is actually a second book inside the first book.
Jesus said all the scriptures speak of him. We now can read them the way Jesus did. He did not see Adam, Noah and Abraham, but himself. The more of the OT that is unpacked using the first century hermeneutic, the more the claim of Mormonism is put to shame.
The secondary claim of having a modern prophet is put to shame since he is unable to read the scriptures the way Jesus did, and is unable to discern the BOM as fraudulent.
The Reformation proclaimed that all could read the scriptures.
The 'experts' of the Reformation in various flavors gathered to debate the topic of Sensus Plenior. This is a name used for the intended meaning of God in the scriptures which was hidden, even from the human authors.
The only thing that they could agree on was that they could not read the scriptures the way Jesus did.
This is a major black eye to the Reformation.
Proud Restorationists humbled [∞]
The claim of the Restoration movement was to return church practice to that of the first century church.
Since they too were unable to read the scriptures the way Jesus did, they could not actually restore anything. They simply used the extant scriptures as a lowest common denominator to effect a mini-ecumentical movement.
They have not restored the first century hermeneutic, and could not restore the first century teaching of Christ from all the scriptures.
What started as a free will submission to a lowest common denominator, has often turned into another wave a Pharisaical legalism.
