Any christians want to save a soul?

Question

Tell me how this article does not CLEARLY, and logically disprove Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt and you can save my soul:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/imposs.htm

What do you mean? Can't jesus save me through you christians? you know...like when a doctor saves a patient from a genetic life-threatening disorder that god obviously gave them, by working THROUGH the doctors? Or does god only do that when it is in benefit of your religous beliefs?

I don't get it Zolta. This is logic stripped to it's finest form, not religion...

you read the article, and you say that it is 'faith' that we do not believe in a god. Yet you didn't give me one logical argument to show how the article does not PROVE to me that the christian religion is bogus. I mean this isn't gathering evidence to draw conclusion, this isn't an assumption, or a 'guess'..this article PROVES that christianity is false.

That's not religion buddy. It's proven. It's fact. No faith required.

Answer 1

The article is full of sarcasm and emotion. To disprove the perfection of God perfect logic devoid of the emotionalism that Christian “argument” is accused of, and cynicism, which contributes its own unreasonableness would have to be used. If you tried to disprove perfection, which exists as a concept in the mind of man, you would have to disprove that man exists. So, if perfection exists in this obviously imperfect world, even if only in the mind of man, for the sake of argument, then what could that be saying about man?

I have to apologize. I didn’t actually read the article because I couldn’t get past the objections I expressed in the above part of this response. But I did go back and read it and would like to comment on it again. You can have impeccable logic but if your premise are not sound then your conclusion will not hold water, except to those who are not able to see logical fallacy. God is a being not a concept. Equilibrium is a concept. Concepts don’t need anything, they are only a model of what is, so then where does need come into play? Something has to be in order to need. Is the author talking about a concept or a being? Since he's talking about need he is talking about a being, and love would be one of the characteristics of that being. Love is an action and requires an object to direct its actions toward. And the rest isn’t hard to figure out. God created the world. Jesus is the express image of God and came to earth to show us God’s love for mankind. The imperfections of the universe are not a reflection of God’s perfection but of what ensues when a perfect being creates other beings who, yes, have free will.

Answer 2

I have no intention of 'saving your soul.' I encourage you to believe what you want. But, here are my thoughts:

For starters, the article makes many assumptions about "Christianity" that are only applicable to certain (fundamentalist) denominations. For example: Hellensitic Christianity, from the 2nd century down to the modern era, has never accepted that God is eternal, all-powerful, all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. The last is particularly interesting - the Philokalia says "Never call God just." They also deny that God experiences any of the emotions that humans do, that he is all-knowing, and that he sees all things past and future. They also deny that the Bible is the perfect and true Word of God.

In case you think I am talking about some minority denomination here, I am talking about the dominant form of Christianity that produced all of the ancient definitions of the faith, oversaw the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and includes all the indigenous Christians of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, and North Africa, and Mesopotamia (which once included more adherents than the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches combined). They also practice the oldest rites known to Christianity. Their theology is apophatic, and so rejects all of the attributes of God listed above. They insist that the Bible is not the 'Word' of God, and actually find that expression offensive. They reject the idea that Jesus took our penalty upon the cross, that God demanded a pure human sacrifice for the atonement of sin, and that humanity has a sinful nature. They reject the idea that accepting forgiveness for sins in a prerequisite for admission to heaven, or that those who do not accept forgiveness for sins will spend an eternity in a created hell.

Point is, since the article is based on characteristics that are not fundamental to Christianity, are not reflected in the Bible or the writings of the ancient Church, and are still rejected by the worlds 2nd largest Christian denomination, it doesn't hardly seem to disprove Christianity 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' Now, that's not to say that the author of the article couldn't make a case against Christianity, but first he would have to define the characteristics of Christianity as a religion, rather than just an incomplete sector of the Christian faith.

On a positive note, I would say that the author of the article does a good job of disproving the dominant form of Protestantism found here in the US.

Christian theology is a complex subject based on Hellenistic philosophy, and was forged in attacks from some of the most brilliant minds of the ancient world. They may be wrong, they may be illogical, but the obscurity of traditional Christian theology provides a pretty thick bulwark. You have to know what you are dealing with before you can issue a rational apologetic against it.

Answer 3

Christians are usually so blindly 'faithful' that you can't argue logic with them.

Look into the mechanics of hypnotism. You will see it fits a lot of the same characteristics as Christianity and other religious beliefs. You tell a person under hypnosis to do something, and they'll pretty much do it. You tell them a 'fact' and they'll probably believe it, no matter what, at least until they get out of the spell.

Christians pretty much just go along with things. They'll never get out of it unless they happen to snap out of it for a moment. Until then, they'll never even give an honest chance at opening their eyes.

Answer 4

No thanks.

You're a little too dependent on Christianity to be taken seriously.

It's one thing to be worried about the influence of the Religious Right, and another to sit around trying to disprove everyone else's beliefs.

I certainly don't sit around writing articles or posting online about the superiority of my belief system. But the Christians this article refers to do. And so do you. Hmmm...

Immature people, like teenagers first doing whatever it is their parents don't want them to do, define themselves by what they AREN'T. Mature people move beyond that child stage and define themselves by what they ARE. I have many atheist and agnostic friends that define themselves by what they are - I suggest you do the same.

~ Lib

Answer 5

simply by fact all of us understand that some day you will go away your earthly physique and your eternal soul is going to go the two to a astounding heaven or to a terrible hell. we decide on you to visit heaven and not go through in hell it truly is why. yet another element, saints are actually not desperate by utilising your definition yet by utilising the bible. The bible says that every physique that accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior is seen a saint. So any Christian (no longer Catholic) that speaks approximately saving souls, is a saint, no be counted their age or visual allure.

Answer 6

What kind of argument would it take to not prove that Christianity is false to you? Would that be the same kind of argument that atheists use on Christians when atheists say that they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but that the burden of proof is on the Christian? Seems the burden of proof is on you to prove that Christianity is false if you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.

Answer 7

I read your article and it's the same old same old.

PS You guys (atheists) are very faithful in being anti faith. Like I've said before atheists like yourself are very religious with your beliefs.

Answer 8

Christians don't save souls they lead people to the Lord and He does it. How is trying to steal people's faith working for you? Does it fulfill you and bring you joy or are you bored? Have a good day.

Answer 9

It doesn't seem like any of the Christians are able to refute the arguments made in that article.

Answer 10

Interesting article. But you are preaching to the choir in my case!