First off, you do see atheists talking against other religions. Not buddhism and hinduism so much but definitely islam. MC says this is all proof atheists believe in God because why else would they do it--well to my mind a much more obvious and mundane answer is that they perceive Christian or other 'religious' practices to be coming into conflict with their own interests. Atheists who don't want their tax money paying for Anglican Bishops to sit in parliament will campaign against it, atheists who want to do business on Sundays but can't because of trading laws will campaign against that, etc, etc. In countries like USA and UK, atheists bang on about Christianity the most because in nominal form it is in their lives the most, via laws, culture and family. Conflict with other religions comes up less often but it does happen: apart from the obvious terrorism chestnut, in the UK over the last few years there has been a lot of debate about whether halal and kosher animal slaughter techniques should be banned, bringing Jews and Muslims into conflict with 'secular' animal welfare organisations. Secondly, regarding ghosts, UFOs and paranormal claims, you see atheists going against that stuff all the time--they call themselves 'sceptics'. James Randi and Derren Brown are two obvious celebrity examples who have had popular TV shows on exposing water diviners, astrologers, mediums and psychics etc. Anyone remember James Randi going after spoon bender Uri Geller in the 1980s and TV medium Sylvia Browne in the 1990s? So yeah, the 'atheists only dislike Christianity' line has always seems to be a bit of a myth to me.
Same in UK--in fact, as we all know, it's already happened. A civil war was fought way back when and now the monarchy effectively rules by consent. The house of commons has primacy in parliament and the Queen has no real power to exceed her role. So that's another difference between kings in Bible times and today. Sometimes I've wondered--if the UK did decide to ditch the monarchy, would the Queen go and live in another one of her realms, like Canada?
If I was visiting Canada, I'd expect my host to take me to see: MooseWolfBeaverBrown bearPolar bearMountieEskimoQuebecTop of Toronto TowerTop of Mount LoganIce hockey gameNorthwest passageNiagara FallsNorthern LightsRocky MountainsPossibly in that order.
I can't defend the position, Old Pilgrim, because, as I explained in the same post, it is Saintnow who has been claiming this and I was just assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was correct. My point is that even if it is true then so what when it comes to soulwinning--surely the best thing to do is proceed as if they don't believe rather than getting all pyschoanalytical on them (or dismissing them).
Hi Old-Pilgrim, you know that some of the posts you are replying to are over six years old, right? And some of the people you are asking questions of, like Wichbla and Seth Doty, haven't visited the forum for at least a couple of years.
I think I agree with this one. If someone has to have read Genesis for themselves and understood everything in it, as well as having read and understood everything else in scripture that reveals something about what sin is and/or where it comes from, then don't we end up asserting that the Gospel message is nothing less than all of scripture, and that a person must have read and correctly understood all of scripture in order to be saved?
Given this thread is in the soulwinning part of the forum, I want to ask, assuming Saintnow's take on the question is true, what relevance does it have to soulwinning? When that atheist fella popped in, some folk, including Saintnow, said to him something along the lines of: 'actually the Bible says that you know that God is real, that you deceive yourself into thinking otherwise, and that you're a fool. Therefore I'm calling you a fool and that's our conversation done'. Now in fairness, some folk were saying this in response to a specific question from the atheist ("what do you think of atheists", if I remember), and so didn't have their soul-winning hats on, and moreover some said that because the chap used to attend church there wasn't anything new to tell him. But more generally, just because the Bible tells believers that atheists are fools and that they deceive themselves, does that mean our job is to impart that information directly to them and be done with them? Seems to me that if an atheist really does believe in God but doesn't know that they do, then in every practical sense that is the same as them not believing in God--i.e. the answer is still to witness to them and explain why we do believe. Thoughts?
I meant to say something about this but I forgot. Brother Markle, do you happen to have a ballpark figure for the number of days--or months--between you asking Covenantor the question that accompanied this one and you actually getting an answer to it? I'd just like to know when to check back next.
Certainly nothing surprising about the stuff proposed in that article. Even the police have done worse: in UK the MET placed undercover officers with environmental campaign groups and these guys stayed with those groups for years, not just observing but, according to the latest allegations, influencing and directing the groups' activities. It's now alleged that the famous anti-McDonalds leaflet that resulted in a huge court case against campaigners in the 1990s was actually written by an undercover officer. Worst of all is that to better infiltrate the groups, officers started intimate relationships with female campaigners, some that lasted years, and they even fathered children by them. One apparently was dividing time up between his real wife and kids (who didn't know about his state-sanctioned adultery) and his undercover partner and children. Then when their bosses at the MET gave the order, these officers abandoned their activist partners and children, fobbing them off with cover stories about them having to flee the country. One woman spent years trying to contact her partner in Spain, occasionally receiving postmarked letters from him. In fact, her partner was just a few miles away behind a desk at the MET, having resumed his normal life (and now with an MBE from the Queen!).