9 Comments

• 

  Chuck Roberts

  I just don’t think enough people have put the thought necessary into the word, eternity. If people would think more about this word and its meaning there wouldn’t be so many silly questions about why some Christians are so willing to celebrate and share their faith.

  If I have to hear one more time, from an Atheist, that God, Jesus, Allah, etc… Doesn’t care about who wins a football game I will puke. You don’t even have enough ability to expand your mind past your own reality and yet you want to tell believers what their God DOESN’T, WON’T, OR CAN’T do something.

  We Christians believe in the promise of eternity and if you are going to argue or take a stance against us we would appreciate a bit of education on your part.

  Do you really think that anyone who truly believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (the same Jesus Christ that promises life everlasting) doesn’t believe he could be in every single facet of every single living being?

  You would either have to be ignorant or just plain dumb to make that argument to a true believer.

  What do you think Christians believe will happen for eternity? Do you think they think they will just be watching football games and playing checkers and pretty much doing what they have been on Earth?

  So in a million years, you think someone who believes in God, thinks it’s going to be the same ole, same ole for eternity. Please, just let me die and the worms have at me, if that’s the case.

  God has a plan and you don’t go about giving life everlasting so that people can be bored in a few thousand years.

  Think about eternity? In a million years you will have a billion, then a trillion more years. When that is done, that entire time will be like a blink of an eye, compared to how much longer eternity lasts. When you finally wrap your mind around all that, you still aren’t even one trillionth of the way through. That’s eternity.

  So you think people who believe in that don’t think God can be involved in a football game? I think he’ll manage o.k.

  Also, try not to hate God because there are kids starving in India and there are crippled and helpless all over Earth. He knows what is happening you don’t.

  For people to be so arrogant as to think they should be able to think on God’s level is deplorable.

  Maybe those starving kids in India, in about 4 billion years, won’t be worrying about what happened to them back then. Maybe they will have been rewarded so much that it doesn’t matter to them. Maybe on their 500 trillionth birthdays they will be able to put it behind them.

  People who don’t have faith are typically close minded.

  Science says humans use less than 10 or 12 percent of their brains capacity. Yet, some that are not even the smartest of humans (at less than 12% capacity of their own brains), want to believe they can out think a God that offers eternity.

  No wonder you are Atheists.

  10 Dec 2011 12:12 am (@Twitter)

  Reply
• 

  Christopher Benek

  Chuck,
  Thanks for your comments. I can’t begin to wrap my mind around eternity.

  Three comments that I think are helpful:
  1.) I think we need to refrain from calling people Atheists because there is no such thing – everyone has a God/god(s). I know it’s a hard habit to break but as Christians we should work on it if we want people to consider what God/god(s) they worship.
  2.) Neuroscience actually suggests that we use 100% of our brain. The 10-12% factoid is a myth (a VERY popular one). See here http://tinyurl.com/o97erv
  3.) If Christians would feed those starving kids (throughout the world), we would witness to the Love of God being present in the world right now. When we fail to do this, we fail to show the Love that Christ commands of us.

  Of course, none of these points (I think) change the intent behind what you wrote.

  Blessings

  10 Dec 2011 02:12 am (@benekcj)

  Reply
• 

  jason

  Hahaha! So “rational people” believe in worshipping inanimate objects and “agnostics” (perhaps you should open that dictionary back up), who do not believe in anything but possibility (and are seeking to prove a negative, in flawed premise) actually believe in those inanimate objects as well??? You are off your rocker buddy… you must be a “believer”.

  19 Apr 2012 08:04 pm

  Reply

  • Christopher Benek

    Jason,
    
    Historically and sociologically it has been demonstrated time and time again that people in fact do have idols (i.e. god(s)). That isn’t a contested fact academically. Agnostics simply limit belief to their personal experience, which is subjective. As a matter of fact, for you to claim that they “don’t believe in anything” but possibility is absurd. It is impossible for them to believe in nothing, because by definition, there is no such thing. What they believe in is what they can experience which is tangibly something. Whether or not I am seeking to prove a negative is only your imposed opinion. When you come up with an actual academic objection to my argument please come back and make your case and I will gladly engage in a discussion.

    19 Apr 2012 09:04 pm
• 

  Jason

  No sir, it is not opinion that an agnostic is seeking to prove a negative, at all… that is an absurd claim. How can I prove to an agnostic (or anyone, for that matter) that something DOES NOT exist when there is no tangible evidence to rely on? If it is not there, what would you propose I utilize in backing up my statement?

  If I said that there was a fungalaboo in my lap right now, and you say “there is no such thing as a fungalaboo”, then what, pray tell, would you use to prove such a claim?

  That is called “proving a negative”, and it is impossible, by definition.

  Used broadly (and according to Merriam Webster) the term agnostic means: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god . Therefore, they believe IN THE POSSIBILITY that there may or may not be such a God. That would mean they believe in possibility, academically or otherwise.

  Now, to your “idol” comment, I do have an Idol as an Atheist, and a rational (long-term, life promoting) one at that. I idolize my own mind for its ability to utilize facts and universals to form concepts, which are sound. That process is called “logic” and it is in contradiction to “faith” by definition. Does this mean that I believe in a “higher power”? NO, because there is no higher power than the individual. I am my own highest power, which means I am accountable for my own actions and decisions. You give your “God” the credit for your good and the blame for your bad. Or, eveen worse, many give only one of the two, and keep whichever makes them feel warmest inside as their own doing. I have such integrity and I am proud of it. The notion that “rational” individuals could see an object, without consciousness, as a higher power is totally ridiculous and you know it. Just as ridiculous is the notion that ethics are subjective and can only be gleaned by a “God” or a man writing on a “God”‘s behalf. All religions subscribe to different ethics and values, in some form or another. All because some prophet or institution preaches those “ethics”. In reality, to live as a free and rational being one must have an ethical code because, otherwise, one would be causing one’s self harm in the long term by doing otherwise–but that is another and lengthy discussion.

  I have yet to meet anyone that believes that their PS3 is almighty, even if they do place an incredibly high value on it. Your premise is flawed. Seeing something as most valuable DOES NOT mean that one places faith in such an item or person, or spirit. It means you value it, simply. To have a “God” means to hold an entity as all-knowing and all-powerful, or, at least, the creator of all beings. Those are wholly seperate, and you have neglected that fact in your proposition. If you had an agnostic stating that they prayed to their PS3 for change or followed its doctrine in life then, and only then, would this argument be sound. To say that weighted valuation leads to worship is to either be dishonest or ignorant.

  If you find it possible to be both rational and idolize inanimate objects then we have found the flaw in your premise. If not, and you simply used poor wording in this discussion, then you can drop the academic prowess you wish to convey and recognize that your “God” is no more rational than their PS3…

  Besides, if having an idol is no different than having a god then how is it any less absurd for you to believe in the Christian God as it is for them to believe in an allmighty Playstation 3? What, because some barbarian with the intellect of a modern elementary-school student wrote about yours it makes it more “rational”? At least their god exists….

  19 Apr 2012 10:04 pm (@Twitter)

  Reply

  • Christopher Benek

    Jason – You have misread what I wrote. I wrote “Whether or not I am seeking to prove a negative is only your imposed opinion.” In other words – your claim that my God is non-existent is simply your opinion. I wrote that: “Agnostics simply limit belief to their personal experience, which is subjective.” That is a fact. Agnostics acknowledge that fact as well.
    
    You make numerous assumptions about my beliefs regarding God, none of which are substantiated by information in this post. That is you imposing your opinion on my beliefs, not using evidence to challenge what I believe.
    
    If you read the post carefully you will see that I am simply pointing out that everyone has a god(s)/God. I never used words like “almighty” or “higher power” to describe little “g” gods. I don’t suggest that people in the modern era (typically at least) pray to something that doesn’t hear them either like a PS3. That is just crazy. I simply point out that people do in practice, by definition, worship idols/little “g” gods – a fact that you have readily noted in your last post. People in civilizations throughout the centuries have understood what it means to worship people/things. That is clearly noted and also is not a debated sociological fact. Historically we know that the Israelites of the Old Testament actually made a golden calf and worshiped it. A PS3 in my estimation can do far more than a golden statue.
    
    You yourself admit that you are not an atheist because you admit that you have an idol (i.e. a little “g” god) – that being yourself (specifically you say “your mind” – even though you seem to extend your thoughts to your physical actions). This means that you worship yourself - maybe not in the traditional religious sense that you seem to have such strong ties to though your verbiage, but in basic definition surely.
    If we follow your own reasoning then, if there are more logical people than you – then they would be more worthy of your admiration and you then would be compelled to – assuming that you are smart enough to actually recognize that they are more logical than you - “trade up” on your idolatry in order to worship them instead of yourself.
    
    Odd how, for not believing in a big “g” God, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions about someone that you don’t believe exists.
    
    Maybe that is because of all of the tangible evidence that you have observed attesting to my God? Thousands of years of developing human culture and the advancement of humanity through the Judeo-Christian tradition speak to the factual authenticity of such a claim. Not to mention the thousands of historical accounts derived from eyewitnesses that directly impacted one of the largest civilizations in human history and effectually transformed the world. That seems to be far more evidence than there is to believe in your (Jason’s) mind. What then should I trust in? Thousands of years of personal experience, life-changing testimonies (by some of the greatest thinkers ever to live), historical data, social advancement, and the tangible fulfillment of human needs or - your (Jason’s) mind? Who is being logical now?

    20 Apr 2012 04:04 am
• 

  Jason

  Here is the thing, Reverend, before you assault me on petty items like my misreading you (actually, you misread me — I was simply continuing without addressing it because I saw no requirement to be so petty in debate when a more potent topic is at hand. I originally said that *agnostics are seeking to prove a negative, you turned that into “whether or not [YOU are] seeking to prove a negative…”) and the fact that I put a third “e” in the word “even”…

  …let’s discuss the fact that you are creating a false argument by utilizing false, subjective (your own, even) definitions of the hot-topic words in your post here. For that is my entire point in posting a reply.

  Atheism (Merriam-Webster): a disbelief in the existence of a deity

  Deity (Merriam-Webster): (a) a god or goddess; (b) one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

  Agnostic (Merriam-Webster): one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

  I mustn’t address your claim that I “make numerous assumptions about [your] beliefs regarding God, for you, yourself, called them Christian, and apparently are a Reverend. They are made clear already to those of us who have done our research. What I must address, however, is my point that you are claiming that there can be no such thing as an “Atheist”, but by definition, you are wrong. I am. I do not believe “in the existence of a deity” of any kind whatsoever. That does not mean I must worship or idolize a smarter man than myself, because contradictory to your point, we do not ALL have “an inherent need to worship”. I have clearly told you that I have no higher power. I am as high a power as there is, not higher than any other or lesser than any other conscious human being. I do not worship, pray to or place faith in a single entity in existence or not in existence (in this case). I, like all human beings, possess the ability to gather facts and base my concepts on them. If one of my conclusions or beliefs is weakened constantly by new findings or based, primarily, on pure hearsay, then I reconsider it and, often, reach a new conclusion or belief. I have “a lot of opinions about someone that [I] don’t believe exists” because I have studied every religion and religious basis I could (and can) find attempting to answer that question for myself. The contradictions and (your words again) “hypocritical nature of Christ’s self-proclaimed followers” made me question the entire system of beliefs. The fact that there is no more proof for the entity I am told to live my entire life by or for than there is for the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy led me to question why, when all blind faith I have given in life has bitten my in the rear, I would be asked to put the same blind faith into the most important question there is.

  I learned.

  The flawed time lines, especially when mapped across multiple books of religious literature such as the Old and New Testaments; the impossibilities contained therein, which would have been logical answers to questions unanswered in the time of limited technologies and science; the pure brutality of the men who ruled in the time of all long-existent religions… it all makes for bad math, letting such illogical evidential pillars form the basis for how I live.

  20 Apr 2012 06:04 am (@Twitter)

  Reply

  • Christopher Benek

    Jason, I am not contesting the point to be difficult. Nor am I assaulting you. You started this interaction by claiming that I am “off my rocker”. I am attempting to show you that there is a very systematic and well thought out logic behind what I have written.
    
    We worship as part of who we are as human beings. An idol is a little “g” god. You admit that you have one. I am claiming that this is very normal and in fact a natural condition of being human. This is not a reaching academic point. This has been understood by human beings pretty much as long as we have had a historical record.
    
    None of your definitions contradict what I am saying. As far as belief in the Christian God goes one is either a person who is liberal enough (in the classic sense) to be open to such a possibility of existence via proof or one outright rejects the and refuses the notion altogether even in the face of evidence. Anyone is free to do either but the second option is not a Scientific position and we shouldn’t confuse it as such. The scientist would believe what the evidence suggests regardless of their own preferences.
    
    As for the flaws of people who have acted in the name of Jesus through Christianity as a religion, they are self admitted and have been many. This though is not a flaw in who Jesus is, it is a flaw in the rest of humanity.
    My point is that there is an abundance of historical and academic evidence for the existence of God. And the “inaccurate timelines” that you speak of are a particular reading of Scripture – but certainly not the only ones.
    
    The question really is are you genuinely open to possibilities or have you forever “made up you mind”? If the second claim is your position - then no discussion can be had – because all that remains is the insistence that your position is correct. Anyone is certainly free to hold such a position. If that is case then they simply do not hold a scientific position and they openly deny what collectively humans have come to understand that the aforementioned definitions mean. But if one is still open to possibilities then the claim of a big “g” God’s existence must always be on the table for possible consideration and evaluation based on the evidence, and you must be forever be at the very least an agnostic. And, as such, since we all have idols (little “g” gods) by our nature, fundamentally there is no such thing as an atheist. The word atheist thus simply becomes a term that people use to express that they are not willing to have a conversation anymore.

    20 Apr 2012 11:04 am
• 

  RussG

  Those who are Opposed to God make themself a god by default

  09 Aug 2012 12:08 am (@Twitter)

  Reply