"...every tongue confess Jesus as Lord..."

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, my questions run together. The evidence given makes sense (not those things that run contrary to evidence). There is no question that this Jesus IS a "supernatural being" and DID do such things as depicted in the bible out of love for us. The question is, would you confess this Jesus as Lord? . . . . . . In otherwords, would you STILL be defiant?

Defiant of what? If I ran into some being who was similar to Q, I would certainly accept that his power is far greater than mine, or that of humanity's present level of technological development. Accepting that he's the Biblical God, however, when the Bible cannot even be taken literally, is a severe logical problem.

I could fear a super-powerful being if one manifested himself. That doesn't mean I would suddenly think the Bible must be anything other than what I think it is now.

[Mr. Coffee]

those sections, as I see them, were probably children's stories that were told, not literal events.

Funny, because you follow that up with...

Just because Jesus makes mention of them in the NT, doesn't mean they were literal occurances.

Because if Jesus was supposed to be God in the flesh, and Jesus/God said "Yes, this shit really happened. See what'll happen to you if you don't bow down and love me?", then the OT accounts have to be true. Otherwise why would Jesus/God say "Yup, this happened. I love you lots, so believe in me or else..."?

The evidence given makes sense (not those things that run contrary to evidence).

So now you get to pick and choose the evidence that backs your position? Um, I gotta call bullshit on that.

There is no question that this Jesus IS a "supernatural being" and DID do such things as depicted in the bible out of love for us.

If there was no question in my mind about "God" then why exactly am I an atheist and not a closedminded little bible thumper like you?

The question is, would you confess this Jesus as Lord? . . . . . . In otherwords, would you STILL be defiant?

No. He would still be the same Jesus/God that says he loves us yet is still going to condemn me to enternal torture because I didn't suck up to him early enough.

Also, that'd the fourth time this thread you've changed the question. Pick a fucking scenario and stick with it, asshole.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The question is, would you confess this Jesus as Lord? . . . . . . In otherwords, would you STILL be defiant?

Of course; he's an enemy, a tool of the Psychopath in the Sky.

This is the "bottom line". It speaks to the probability that "every knee will bow . . and tongue confess" won't actually happen. . . . . . . .unless forced, . . . . but then that wouldn't be an actual confession since "confession" requires the confessor to believe what's being confessed.

You'll never get everyone to agree about anything without mind control.

[Magnetic]

Mr. Coffee, . . . . I'm not a bible thumper. I thought I was clear about that.

I don't believe in this man-made evention of Hell, nor the scare tactics used to "spook people into beleif". If there is a actual entity that actually DOES have some sort of "fatherly love for his creation", . . . . then it makes no sense to send the majority of them to an eternal Lake of Fire.



Anyway, back to the topic. So, If I understand what some of you are saying, . . . .no, in fact (barring mind control) you would NOT be persuaded regardless of what may be presented?

Darth Wong, . . . ."defiant" is perhaps not the best word there. "Unconvinced" may be a better choice.

[Magnetic]

Man, my grammar and spelling sucks.

*ghetto edit*

"I don't believe in this man-made invention of Hell, nor the scare tactics used to "spook people into belief". If there is an entity that actually DOES have some sort of "fatherly love for his creation", . . . . then it makes no sense to send the majority of that creation to an eternal Lake of Fire. "

[Mr. Coffee]

If there is a actual entity that actually DOES have some sort of "fatherly love for his creation", . . . . then it makes no sense to send the majority of them to an eternal Lake of Fire.

Yet another great reason to be an Atheist. You sure you're actually trying to bat for the other team?

So, If I understand what some of you are saying, . . . .no, in fact (barring mind control) you would NOT be persuaded regardless of what may be presented?

Fucking shit! Reread my posts, idiot. I've already answered, then re-answered, then re-re-answered the question.

[Duckie]

Just to step in on you here, you have made a lot of posts that seem to be trying to latch onto one particular concept you have revolving around whether or not people can accept the bible, or even parts of it, as true. While I'm not entirely yet certain where you're leading here, the astoundingly obvious conclusion I would offer is that many biblical statements are not capable of containing truth. Once you reach that conclusion, you realize that you can suddenly eliminate a whole pile of philosophical or theological questions right off the bat.

To add further onto Lagmonster's words, Magnetic, I have also noticed that a majority of your posts here in my experience have been attempts to rationalize parts of your faith and other apologism, posing as questions about the feasability of the Ark and such. That's just my opinion, and I might be mistaken. If so, my apologies.

I would admit the power of God if he revealed himself to the world in a noticable capacity. I like to think that I would never bow to the Creator of Auschwitz and the Originator of the Armenian Genocide, but who can say what you would do in such a case? Survival instinct.

God may not be omnipotent if we take Revelations seriously, but he has the capacity to destroy the world and also create a pocket dimension of everlasting torture.

Better to join and seek reform on the inside or just do nothing than waste your life against a being you have no hope of killing (although according to an equally true piece of fiction, God can be killed via Photon Torpedo. )

[Morilore]

Anyway, back to the topic. So, If I understand what some of you are saying, . . . .no, in fact (barring mind control) you would NOT be persuaded regardless of what may be presented?

What, exactly, is being presented?
You have not clearly described a scenario, here. It almost seems as if you're fishing for an excuse to go "OMG t3h ath315t5 r 1rr4t10n4l cuz t3y w0u1d n3vah 4ks3pt JEEEBUSS!!!11" at someone else.
If we go by your OP, you ask

My question is, what would it take for you (especially those of you who are professing atheists) to confess that, on bended knee? "Confess" gives you the idea that the person believes it to be truth.

My answer to this is

1. Mind control.
2. He'd have to have been around for a long time, so I could make a judgement on more than just his word. He'd have to have acknowledged that he is not omnipotent (or else he is not benevolent, in which case he would have no moral authority), and that, if he indeed created the universe, he fucked up hugely, but now he's got this shit on lockdown. He would have to demonstrate surpassing intelligence, compassion, understanding of the human condition, and competence as a ruler. He would have to do something to improve the human condition that no other human being or group of humans can. He would have to be patient, kind, not envying, not boasting, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking (especially of power), and not easily angered. He would have to SHOW ME that he has these traits, and not just tell me. He would have to be and do everything the Biblical God isn't and doesn't, and most important on that list is that he must not care whether I think he's "Lord." Simply descending from high, vaping his enemies, and saying "I'm Jesus Christ bitch" won't fucking cut it.

[Magnetic]

Just to step in on you here, you have made a lot of posts that seem to be trying to latch onto one particular concept you have revolving around whether or not people can accept the bible, or even parts of it, as true. While I'm not entirely yet certain where you're leading here, the astoundingly obvious conclusion I would offer is that many biblical statements are not capable of containing truth. Once you reach that conclusion, you realize that you can suddenly eliminate a whole pile of philosophical or theological questions right off the bat.

To add further onto Lagmonster's words, Magnetic, I have also noticed that a majority of your posts here in my experience have been attempts to rationalize parts of your faith and other apologism, posing as questions about the feasability of the Ark and such. That's just my opinion, and I might be mistaken. If so, my apologies.

I would admit the power of God if he revealed himself to the world in a noticable capacity. I like to think that I would never bow to the Creator of Auschwitz and the Originator of the Armenian Genocide, but who can say what you would do in such a case? Survival instinct.

God may not be omnipotent if we take Revelations seriously, but he has the capacity to destroy the world and also create a pocket dimension of everlasting torture.

Better to join and seek reform on the inside or just do nothing than waste your life against a being you have no hope of killing (although according to an equally true piece of fiction, God can be killed via Photon Torpedo. )

I DO have two oposing fronts in me. One that looks at the obvious evidences of our physical world, and another part that . . . basically has been indoctrinated into the feeling that I am on a "dangerous road" of sorts. It is an indoctrination that I've been struggling my way out of, . . .but when you've been raised in it all your life (I'm in my upper 30's), a part of you tries to hang on.


To the others who posted. Thanks for your input. Again, I apologize if I've been disjointed in my posts. I'm not even sure if I'm expressing my thoughts correctly . . . . . and apparently I'm not.

Next topic.

[Coyote]

"Umm... I created life!"

"So what? We can do the same thing in a glass jar with some organic compounds and a bit of electricity."

Yes but "with the help of a willing female volunteer" is more fun.

I also created earth. Apparantly, all you need are some months-old leaves and a Honda mower with "mulch".

Okay, sorry to butt in.

[Mr. Coffee]

"Umm... I created life!"

"So what? We can do the same thing in a glass jar with some organic compounds and a bit of electricity."

Yes but "with the help of a willing female volunteer" is more fun.

I also created earth. Apparantly, all you need are some months-old leaves and a Honda mower with "mulch".

Okay, sorry to butt in.

That rocked, Coyote... Makes me wish I'd have though of that when I posted that first bit, as that's even more smartassed then what I wrote.

[Magnetic]

Having gone back to a previous answer, . . . . .

Hey, I'm just stating what Protestant religions states. I used to BE a Protestant Fundie, but not anymore. I'm just asking the question as a hypothetical. Go with it that way.

No, what you're doing is completely changing the original question of "What would it take for you (especially those of you who are professing atheists) to confess that, on bended knee?" into "God/Jesus has proven beyond the shadow of doubt he is real, would you bow down to him now?"

If the former question, then as I said before, I need concrete proof. I'm an athiest, not an irrational idiot. He proves it, then I'd be forced to re-evaluate my position.

If the latter, it's a moot point as I would be burning in hell along with anyone that wasn't a Christian.

Since it is my post, and my question (the OP), I can elaborate further upon it. It's not a difficult concept. The first question asks "what it would take", . . . . . .and since "I'd need proof" is an obvious answer, I decided to go with the idea that proof of some sort was given, then asked if you would now bow down. In other words, would you confess, or would you (regardless of what was given) refuse to confess.

So fine, IF there was proof given, you would re-evaluate your position. I DID see that comment, and I apologize for not acknoledging it sooner.

But I don't see how "if the latter" would equate to you already being in Hell burning? I believe that "Hell" was a human invention used to scare people into Christianity. It's a poor reason to embrace any religion or faith.

Anyway, there is apparently some time when everyone is supposed to bow knee and confess Jesus is Lord. . . . . . . I have no idea as to when that is supposed to be . . . . . . .

It's simple, dumbass... Go pick up a bible and start reading. If the event you're talking about is there, eventually you'll stumble across it. Or, if you're lazy, try Google.

Apparently you like to dish out "dumbass" too quickly. Where the phrase (in the OP) is stated in the bible, . . . there IS no time frame given to it to distinguish WHEN it was supposed to take place! Instead of lashing out, you could give someone the benefit of the doubt. Just because this forum is a place for "mocking someone", it doesn't mean that you have to. Especially when it isn't warranted.

Anway, the way he proves it is irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. If some random guy comes up to me and says "Hi, I'm the Lord thy God, bow before me!" I'm going to want something more concrete then his word on it.

If I happen to witness the events of Revelations, and I'm being judged, then it's meaningless because according to the bible I'll be going to hell anyways. As I'd already be going to hell anyways, I see no logical reason for why I should suddenly start kissing the ass of the entity responsible for condemning me to eternal torment.

I don't personally see John's Revelation as a "look into what the future WILL hold". There is WAY too much figurative language and symbolism to take it as 100% foresight.

[Broomstick]

Just curious about something. In the Bible, it states that "every knee shall bow, .. ..and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God...".

My question is, what would it take for you (especially those of you who are professing atheists) to confess that, on bended knee? "Confess" gives you the idea that the person believes it to be truth. Such as the definition given in the dictionary:

1. To disclose (something damaging or inconvenient to oneself); admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge.
2. To acknowledge belief or faith in; profess.

If a person doesn't believe it TO be true, an actual confession wouldn't be true. . . . and if coersed, still not an actual confession.

To address the actual topic at hand before I commence kicking the shit out of the retarded troll that strolled into this thread....

There are only two ways to get me to "confess" Jesus as as God:
1) Mind control. But as you point out, a coerced confession is not a true confessoin.
2) Overwhelming proof. OVERWHELMING. Because even a "miracle" could be proof my Gods are at work, rather than the Christian God. I'm not even sure what such a proof would have to consist of.

Me - I always thought real "revelation" of Revelations was just how badly bad mushrooms could work you over.

[Magnetic]

Just curious about something. In the Bible, it states that "every knee shall bow, .. ..and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God...".

My question is, what would it take for you (especially those of you who are professing atheists) to confess that, on bended knee? "Confess" gives you the idea that the person believes it to be truth. Such as the definition given in the dictionary:

1. To disclose (something damaging or inconvenient to oneself); admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge.
2. To acknowledge belief or faith in; profess.

If a person doesn't believe it TO be true, an actual confession wouldn't be true. . . . and if coersed, still not an actual confession.

To address the actual topic at hand before I commence kicking the shit out of the retarded troll that strolled into this thread....

There are only two ways to get me to "confess" Jesus as as God:
1) Mind control. But as you point out, a coerced confession is not a true confessoin.
2) Overwhelming proof. OVERWHELMING. Because even a "miracle" could be proof my Gods are at work, rather than the Christian God. I'm not even sure what such a proof would have to consist of.

Me - I always thought real "revelation" of Revelations was just how badly bad mushrooms could work you over.

Thank you for your input, Broomstick. Your #2 kinda goes back to my ponderings, . . "if Christians die and find out that they were wrong and some other religion was right, . . . what would THEY do?" . . . . . because if (say) YOUR religious beliefs were right, . . . . (if I understand your beliefs right or not, I'm not certain) . . . . a Christian would die and would experience a completely different afterlife than the biblical Heaven.

[Broomstick]

Thank you for your input, Broomstick. Your #2 kinda goes back to my ponderings, . . "if Christians die and find out that they were wrong and some other religion was right, . . . what would THEY do?" . . . . . because if (say) YOUR religious beliefs were right, . . . . (if I understand your beliefs right or not, I'm not certain) . . . . a Christian would die and would experience a completely different afterlife than the biblical Heaven.

True - they would experience a different afterlife than what they were expecting. Which doesn't mean it would be unpleasent. It may or it may not be unpleasent, depending on a number of factors, but merely being Christians would not automatically condemn them to an enternity of hell. For one thing - we don't believe in a Christian-style hell.

Actually, my belief system is ambiguous on the afterlife, in that we admit we don't have scientific proof and there are competing theories. But since we don't have "My way or die!" dogma this is more likely to lead to all-night debates rather than crusades or jihads. There is even concession that the atheists might be right and nothing awaits us on the Other Side but oblivion... although most do not adhere to that particular view.

I guess if I died and found myself outside St. Peter's Gate with all the Biblical paraphenalia I might be inclined to consider that "proof"... although my understanding is that confessing on bended knee at that point would do me no good.

[Magnetic]

Thank you for your input, Broomstick. Your #2 kinda goes back to my ponderings, . . "if Christians die and find out that they were wrong and some other religion was right, . . . what would THEY do?" . . . . . because if (say) YOUR religious beliefs were right, . . . . (if I understand your beliefs right or not, I'm not certain) . . . . a Christian would die and would experience a completely different afterlife than the biblical Heaven.

True - they would experience a different afterlife than what they were expecting. Which doesn't mean it would be unpleasent. It may or it may not be unpleasent, depending on a number of factors, but merely being Christians would not automatically condemn them to an enternity of hell. For one thing - we don't believe in a Christian-style hell.

Actually, my belief system is ambiguous on the afterlife, in that we admit we don't have scientific proof and there are competing theories. But since we don't have "My way or die!" dogma this is more likely to lead to all-night debates rather than crusades or jihads. There is even concession that the atheists might be right and nothing awaits us on the Other Side but oblivion... although most do not adhere to that particular view.

I guess if I died and found myself outside St. Peter's Gate with all the Biblical paraphenalia I might be inclined to consider that "proof"... although my understanding is that confessing on bended knee at that point would do me no good.

Yeah, the whole "St. Peter's Gate" thing, . . streets of gold, gates of pearls, . . . .seems way too much of an influence from Human's wishful thinking. One of the problems I have with some of the Christian Doctrine. Too many "human terminology" placed on something that obviously wouldn't be physical, . . . . Same goes for "atributes of God". Christians like to think they have that all figured out, but I bet they'll be just as surprised then.

[Lagmonster]

If your default position is that the Bible is not capable of containing truth by way of contradiction with observable reality, any questions about the nonsense aspects of it become entertainment at best, yet you seem to be less entertained and more serious about exploring the philosophies of contradiction and delusion.

Imagine if you asked, "How would you react if you discovered the world was flat?" It's speculative nonsense that people can suspend disbelief and toy around with but nobody is going to take seriously.

[Magnetic]

If your default position is that the Bible is not capable of containing truth by way of contradiction with observable reality, any questions about the nonsense aspects of it become entertainment at best, yet you seem to be less entertained and more serious about exploring the philosophies of contradiction and delusion.

Imagine if you asked, "How would you react if you discovered the world was flat?" It's speculative nonsense that people can suspend disbelief and toy around with but nobody is going to take seriously.

You know, . . . you have a good point.

I guess my main reason was to point out how such a verse wouldn't actually happen, given the doctrine of "free will". Thus, not a "literal, infallible" text.

[Lagmonster]

I guess my main reason was to point out how such a verse wouldn't actually happen, given the doctrine of "free will". Thus, not a "literal, infallible" text.

Which is okay, until you realize that the verse "wouldn't actually happen" because the premise on which the claim is based is fiction, an objection which should take precedence to searching the claim for philosophical error.

[Ghost Rider]

Nicky's masturbation went that a way!