How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Mr. Neil]

Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars.

 

But what about agnostic Christians? There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists, but that they have faith in God anyway. How does the presuppositionalist explain this claim?

 

Are we to believe that these people are lying as well? According to Manata logic, they are! Or maybe they know of God, but they don't know that they know of God, and therefore don't know what they know. Why would somebody accept "the truth", but still claim to not know the truth?

 

Ugh... the mental gymnastics one must do to be a fundamentalist Christian. Thank God I'm an atheist.

[Guest JP1283]

This question popped into my mind not too long ago, Mr. Neil. I was babysitting my four-year-old nephew with my mom and I was talking to her about God and basically my whole situation. My nephew heard us and said, "Uncle Jeremy, what's God?"

 

According to Romans 1, he should have known!

 

JP

[Mr. Neil]

One of the points I kept pointing out to Manata, which he never really picked up on, was that he was proving to me that Christianity is false. Although I can't prove to other minds that I'm not lying when I say I'm an atheist, I know in my own mind that I am. So when he tells me that his worldview says I'm a liar, I know that his worldview can't be true.

 

Of course, presuppositinalism isn't an argument to indoctrinate anyway. In fact, it's not even an argument. It's a way for the presuppositionalists to build a brick wall between their reasoning faculties and the actual world around them.

 

A big, thick brick wall.

[Thurisaz]

Just another case of the false dichotomy. It must be written somewhere in their idol that they must use this ludicrous "reasoning", considering how often they do it.

 

Speak out against homophobia, and you get hate replies along the line "U FAGS WILL BURRRRRRRRRRRN!!!!1111!!!!".

 

Announce that you find the doctrine of the christian death cult idiotic to the 20th power, and you get to hear "you atheists just try to let out your depression and loneliness by persecuting christians!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!".

 

Ah, well. Christianity (no, I'll be fair - fundie christianity) is a faith for people who are deathly afraid to try and use their brain (lest they might discover they don't have one). So what did I expect? Silly me!

[Reach]

Ugh... the mental gymnastics one must do to be a fundamentalist Christian.  Thank God I'm an atheist.

I think mental gymnastics are required to be any kind of Christian.

 

We have had several members here who are so agnostic in their faith that they more closely resemble atheists than Christians and their behavior matches the behavior of the godless rather than the godly. The thing that gets to me is that they try to be "cool" Christians but then they are offended when we don't take their beliefs seriously.

 

Good grief! I came out of Christian ministry when I left the faith. I was a seriously committed disciple of Christ. If one doesn't know what one believes why not just be open and honest about it?

 

Thank reason I'm an atheist!

[Mythra]

Hi Mr. Neil

 

I've never read or listened to a debate between an atheist and a christian, but I'm definitely looking forward to it. (although some of the reasoning and philosophical arguments are over my head)

 

Romans 1 talks about God's invisible attributes being evident to all through the observance of his creation.

 

Just curious, how does a christian apologist make the huge leap from that statement, to the assumption that the God of the Bible is that creator?

[Reach]

Just curious, how does a christian apologist make the huge leap from that statement, to the assumption that the God of the Bible is that creator?

It's a huge leap of faith. Bottom line: The Bible says it and he believes it and that settles it for him.

[Ouroboros]

Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars.

 

But what about agnostic Christians?  There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists, but that they have faith in God anyway.  How does the presuppositionalist explain this claim?

 

Are we to believe that these people are lying as well?  According to Manata logic, they are!  Or maybe they know of God, but they don't know that they know of God, and therefore don't know what they know.  Why would somebody accept "the truth", but still claim to not know the truth?

 

Ugh... the mental gymnastics one must do to be a fundamentalist Christian.  Thank God I'm an atheist.

 

Hehe!

 

They're probably not real Christians.

 

But you're right. Logically everyone, atheists as well as backsliding Christians, all should "know" that God exists.

 

I met one guy once, that didn't have a religion, didn't care of God existed, never asked himself meaning of life. He was an atheist by nature. I tried to get into a discussion with him, and he just gave a blank stare, like "I don't know, I never thought about it, no clue." And that was it. He was naturally not religious or philosophical, and just didn't think there was a God. His "god module" in the brain (is it called area 10 or something like that?) wasn't activated.

[Ouroboros]

Just curious, how does a christian apologist make the huge leap from that statement, to the assumption that the God of the Bible is that creator?

 

You're absolutely right, and that's why most of the founding fathers of US were Naturalists and Deists and not Christians. They argued against Christianity as the only guiding light. They wanted to avoid oppression and religious doctrines in the government that were prevalent in Europe.

[Zach]

Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars.

I don't remember Paul explicitly saying that atheists are "liars" because of Romans 1. If I recall correctly, he says that there are no atheists because of it.

Are we to believe that these people are lying as well?  According to Manata logic, they are!  Or maybe they know of God, but they don't know that they know of God, and therefore don't know what they know.  Why would somebody accept "the truth", but still claim to not know the truth?

The distinction of "lying" is, I think, carefully avoided by Paul. Taking Romans 1 at face value, we see that there are no atheists. But you and I claim atheism for ourselves, so what gives? Either we are lying, or the Bible is wrong. According to Paul's worldview, the Bible can't be wrong, so we have to be lying. But lying is definitionally distinguished by an intentional malignance of the truth, and proving that we are intentionally doing so is a burden too big for Paul to bear- and he knows this. So instead he claims that all atheists (along with any other non-Christian) are unknowingly self-decieved. This is the only way that he can still make the claim that we know of God, without contradicting our claims of atheism.

 

The only problem with this reasoning is that it undermines rationality. If we cannot know what we believe (based on rational observation of the universe), then the same can be said of Paul. His only recourse is divine revelation through the Bible based on faith- and thus we see his worldview reduced to irrationality.

 

Which we already knew anyway.

[Mr. Neil]

Just curious, how does a christian apologist make the huge leap from that statement, to the assumption that the God of the Bible is that creator?

Google "Pressing the Antithesis". Have aspirin handy.

 

Zach, I could swear that Paul Manata explicit declared that I was a liar, according to his worldview. Unfortunately, I have no reference to point to, since it happened on the old forum, which is no longer available.

 

Either way, as you've demonstrated, his "worldview" doesn't work.

[Mythra]

Thank you, I'll check it out.

 

So much of the Bible I have found to be absolutely untrue from my personal experience, and I think that those things are the ones that convince me the most.

 

Romans 1 is no exception. It leads one to believe that the sole reason that someone would not believe in God or turn their back on God is so that they can wallow in their sin and do it with a clear conscience.

 

I have found that since I left Christianity, I "sin" WAY less than I did when I was a Christian. I am no longer obsessed with lust. I'm not judgemental of other people and what they believe. I don't look down on others and consider myself superior. I feel sorry for Christians, but I understand them. I haven't found myself racing from one orgy to another.

 

Just another part of the bible that I read and have to call bullshit on it.

[Mythra]

Mr. Neil - I just spent a little time in Manata's blog, and you were wrong. I didn't need an aspirin. I needed an interpreter. I'm not a complete idiot, but I had no idea what he was trying to say. If you are able to debate this guy, my hat is off to you.

 

The only thing I was able to figure out, in answer the question "Is Presuppositionalism Falsifiable", that he never actually tried to answer the question.

[Mr. Neil]

That's because the topic is disingenuous. In order to falsify an argument, you need an argument. He doesn't have one.

[Zach]

Zach, I could swear that Paul Manata explicit declared that I was a liar, according to his worldview.

Admittedly, it's hard to distinguish all of Paul's other accusations of lying from the ones that refer to Romans 1. He may very well have done so- he often retorts on the fly.

 

Here's something specific that I found from the transcript of my conversation with Gene Cook. Derek Sansone called in partway to say that Romans 1 begs the truth of the Christian worldview, and the Paul called in to refute him. Here's the transcript of that call:

 

Gene: Welcome to The Narrow Mind. This is Gene Cook. What’s your name?

 

Caller: Paul.

 

Gene: Paul. How you doing, Paul?

 

Paul: Good.

 

Gene: Good. What’s on your mind?

 

Paul: I just wanted to jump in, at the tail end of the discussion about Romans 1, all men knowing God.

 

Gene: OK, go ahead. … You’re on.

 

Paul: Hello?

 

Gene: You’re on the air, Paul.

 

Paul: Oh, Gene? How’s it going.

 

Gene: Good. You’re on the air.

 

Paul: I just want to… comment on what Derek called in, talking about Romans 1.

 

Gene: OK. Go for it.

 

Paul: And there’s a vital premise that was missing. The reason that he was saying that, well, he doesn’t know it, is because men self-deceive themselves. So… all men know God, but at the same time, they deceive themselves to believe that they don’t know God. And to bring up that it’s a question-begging position, it is on both ends. Since this is a worldview debate, on both ends it’s question-begging. So we assume our worldview when we say that, based on our worldview, all men know that God exists- there are no such things as atheists. And to come and say, “Well, I don’t know that God exists,” is to assume that Paul is wrong in Romans 1, and thus beg the question on your own end.

 

Gene: I would agree with that. Any comments on that, Zach?

 

Zach: Not really.

 

You can find the whole transcript here.

[Amanda]

Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe you are wrong here my friend! Since you were not specific, I suppose this is in regards to Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter. READ IT AGAIN... only let me give you a little insight here, the scripture is talking about the "religous right", not atheist, and definitely not gay people as many would suggest!

 

The religous right of those days are very similar to the religous right today. It is talking about how the religous right worship the created (the Bible, their twist to serve themselves) and not the creator (God of Love, Truth).

 

Where it says that women gave up their natural use of their bodies, and man gave up their natural use of a woman and lusted after each other... THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE, again: NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!!! The original text clearly says that this word "woman" talks about a lactating woman, a nurturing side of mankind. This is mankind, of the religous right, gave up their nurturing side and lusted after each other, gave their selves up to reprabate minds, became war monger, whisperers, and backbiters.

 

HELLO? Obviously this is talking about the religous right, who have started many wars, lust after each other, reprobate minds, whisperers, backbiters... who does that sound like to you? That is why the very first verse in Romans 2 says that if we judge them, then we are no better than they are!!! How could any of that be about a nice group of atheists as on this site or gay people? My suggestion.... read it again and search for what really makes sense, TRUTH!

[Cerise]

I believe you are wrong here my friend! Since you were not specific, I suppose this is in regards to Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter. READ IT AGAIN... only let me give you a little insight here, the scripture is talking about the "religous right", not atheist, and definitely not gay people as many would suggest!

 

The religous right of those days are very similar to the religous right today. It is talking about how the religous right worship the created (the Bible, their twist to serve themselves) and not the creator (God of Love, Truth).

 

Where it says that women gave up their natural use of their bodies, and man gave up their natural use of a woman and lusted after each other... THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE, again: NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!!! The original text clearly says that this word "woman" talks about a lactating woman, a nurturing side of mankind. This is mankind, of the religous right, gave up their nurturing side and lusted after each other, gave their selves up to reprabate minds, became war monger, whisperers, and backbiters.

 

HELLO? Obviously this is talking about the religous right, who have started many wars, lust after each other, reprobate minds, whisperers, backbiters... who does that sound like to you? That is why the very first verse in Romans 2 says that if we judge them, then we are no better than they are!!! How could any of that be about a nice group of atheists as on this site or gay people? My suggestion.... read it again and search for what really makes sense, TRUTH!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean, of course, that you wish us to salad-bar pick over the bible and then interpret them to our own preconcieved ideas and thoughts like every other Christian I have ever known has done.

 

But if we're already doing that, why not just discard the bible as a manuel completely and make up our own religion? T'isn't much different.

[Mr. Neil]

I believe you are wrong here my friend! Since you were not specific, I suppose this is in regards to Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter. READ IT AGAIN... only let me give you a little insight here, the scripture is talking about the "religous right", not atheist, and definitely not gay people as many would suggest!

Tell it to Paul Manata. I'm not the one who applies it to atheists. He is.

 

As for gay people, I never said a damn thing about that. You're the only one who's said anything about homosexuality in relation to any verse in question.

 

Where did this whole rant about gay people come from? Oh, I see. Thurisaz said something about homophobia, and you took it as though it was a reference to Romans 1. But that's not what he was saying, was it? Nope. It was a commentary on Christian reasoning, and all you've done is shown us that you were in too much of a rush to scold someone to actually take the time to absorb what anyone was saying.

 

Perhaps it is you who should try reading this entire thread again. Retard.

[Guest JP1283]

Perhaps it is you who should try reading this entire thread again. Retard.

 

YEAH!

[Amanda]

As for gay people, I never said a damn thing about that.  You're the only one who's said anything about homosexuality in relation to any verse in question.

 

Where did this whole rant about gay people come from?  Oh, I see.  Thurisaz said something about homophobia, and you took it as though it was a reference to Romans 1.  But that's not what he was saying, was it?  Nope.  It was a commentary on Christian reasoning, and all you've done is shown us that you were in too much of a rush to scold someone to actually take the time to absorb what anyone was saying.

 

Perhaps it is you who should try reading this entire thread again.  Retard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must apologize if I conveyed that ANYONE HERE said or were implying that this was also addressing the gay community. Not at all... miscommunication error. Many of my dearest freinds are gay and I have heard many "Christians" use the latter part of Romans as a Biblical stand against gays. I intently studied the original text on this one, and its just not there... in my opinion... so I included that also.

 

As for using the chapter for promoting derrogatory Christian reasoning towards atheist or the unbeliever... I do not agree. It seems to me that the thrust of the work of Jesus was against the self righteous religous right of his time. I may very well be a retard my friend, but that just happens to be my opinion.

 

As for scolding someone, ... you obviously don't know me. Me scolding? Rest assured that this is never anything for which I would scold someone! I'm quite impressed that the person who writes anything here is an original thinker and did not just go with the flow and status quo! It is rather rare that people will question what is the popular belief, and critical thinking is an admirable attribute! Maybe I don't agree with all the people here, yet I can still respect you all... and I do. Actually, it is quite refreshing to find you all...

 

Maybe now that you know I'm a retard you will be more sympathetic with my errors in communicating... yet, still PLEASE continue to call me on them.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thank you, I'll check it out.

 

So much of the Bible I have found to be absolutely untrue from my personal experience, and I think that those things are the ones that convince me the most.

 

 

 

 

Amen, Mythra.

 

"You ask me how I know He doesn't live--

He doesn't live within my heart!"

 

Huge numbers of Christians when pushed to the wall base everything on their experience. "I know the Lord is real because He did such and such." Those of us who come to the opposite conclusions from experience and then act on them to ditch the religion do the same thing Christians do. So, they have no basis to say unbelievers are liars or in the wrong.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Where it says that women gave up their natural use of their bodies, and man gave up their natural use of a woman and lusted after each other... THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE, again: NOT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!!! The original text clearly says that this word "woman" talks about a lactating woman, a nurturing side of mankind. This is mankind, of the religous right, gave up their nurturing side and lusted after each other, gave their selves up to reprabate minds, became war monger, whisperers, and backbiters.

 

 

 

Dear Amanda, it would be great if your exegesis of the end of Romans I became the prevalent view among Christians. I never heard the interpretation that the women Paul refers to gave up lactation. Do you mean he is attacking women who give their infants to nursemaids to nurse rather than nurse their babies themselves? I'd like to know more about the proof that the Greek is talking about a lactating woman. This would be a good argument for gay people like me who were slammed with a lot of shit by antigay religious elements.

 

My question might amount to a hijack of this thread, so maybe it should be a new thread, Amanda, if you want to set forth your evidence.

[Zach]

I believe you are wrong here my friend! Since you were not specific, I suppose this is in regards to Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter. READ IT AGAIN... only let me give you a little insight here, the scripture is talking about the "religous right", not atheist, and definitely not gay people as many would suggest!

 

The passage in question is Romans 1:18-22, with a special emphasis on verse 20.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,

This is interpreted by some Presuppositionalists to mean that all men know of God, but some through self-deception profess atheism.

[Amanda]

Dear Amanda, it would be great if your exegesis of the end of Romans I became the prevalent view among Christians.  I never heard the interpretation that the women Paul refers to gave up lactation.  Do you mean he is attacking women who give their infants to nursemaids to nurse rather than nurse their babies themselves?  I'd like to know more about the proof that the Greek is talking about a lactating woman.  This would be a good argument for gay people like me who were slammed with a lot of shit by antigay religious elements.

 

My question might amount to a hijack of this thread, so maybe it should be a new thread, Amanda, if you want to set forth your evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dear Ficino, I can identify with your outrage, and feel you are justified. I am not gay, yet several of my most precious friends are. It seems to me that Paul is talking about mankind, more specificly the religous right, has given up their nurturing side of themselves exhibited in a lactating woman, and lusted after each other and doing what seems to be narcisstic.

 

I'm new here and do not know what a thread is yet, so I hope I can present the evidence for my stand right here. I wrote this before to you, yet some how it got lost... so here it goes again and I hope it doesn't print twice. I use tools from a site www.crosswalk.com where it says Bible Study Tools and access the KJV with Strong Concordance.

 

1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another *; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

(NOTICE WOMAN IS AN ADJECTIVE, NOT A NOUN!)

 

woman:

Strong's Number: 2338 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

qh'luß from the same as (2337)

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Thelus None

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

thay'-loos  Adjective

 

Definition

of the female sex

a woman, a female

King James Word Usage - Total: 5 woman 2, female 3

 

Strong's Number: 2337 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

qhlavzw from thele (the nipple)

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Thelazo None

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

thay-lad'-zo  Verb

 

Definition

to give the breast, give suck, to suckle

to suck

King James Word Usage - Total: 6 give suck 4, suck 1, suckling 1

[Amanda]

The passage in question is Romans 1:18-22, with a special emphasis on verse 20.

 

This is interpreted by some Presuppositionalists to mean that all men know of God, but some through self-deception profess atheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A copy of the verse you referred to in the forum is:

 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

 

It seems to me that you see this verse as referring to atheism, which has been a popular interpretation. Does just because it is 'popular' make it true? It reveals to me to be the evaluation of the religous right because of their perpetual condemnation of everyone but themselves. Don't they claim to honor God but do not give thanks in their futile speculations? Does atheism claim to know God? Once a man of the religous right asked Jesus how he could eat with the publicans and the sinners. Jesus answered that the harlots and the sinners shall see the kingdom of God before they will. Condemnation is ungodly, and isn't that why most people here are disgusted with the religous right?