How does one present an apologetic when dealing with this:?

[marks]

The theists scream and cry as well, not because of any fear of God's rightful judgement, but to condemn others.

I suppose some do.

 

[farouk]

Some people were brought up to believe God was a tyrant who forbade the idea of premarital sexual intercourse.

The Scriptures don't sanction unzipping in these circumstances, and Christians wouldn't call this tyrannical...

 

[shnarkle]

Just the same, the Bible states that Creation proclaims God's power, and that there is no where that voice is not heard.

Being taught something, "believing" something, regardless, that doesn't change what someone knows inside.

It can severely color what they know inside. A perfect example would be the numerous denominations of Christianity. One Christian knows that Jesus is God, another knows he isn't. One Christian believes it is appropriate and condoned by God to divorce their spouse for any reason while another believes it is forbidden. One believes God is the origin of creation while another believes God is the means of creation. They will all tell you this is obvious and they know it inside.

[/QUOTE]Everyone knows God exists, and everyone knows they will be judged for their sin, and those who don't believe in Jesus do so because they know Jesus is Light, and they prefer darkness, so no one can see their sin.[/QUOTE]

Only those who are enlightened by Christ can truly see their sin which allows them to receive the gift of repentance and salvation. They no longer walk in darkness. Only those who walk in darkness can stumble. The who walk in the light cannot stumble. Therefore they abide in Christ and there is no sin in Christ. They see no sin when they see God's salvation all around them. There is no condemnation.

Become an athiest for the sake of an athiest? What does that mean?

It means that if one refuses to walk as Christ, one will never proclaim the gospel. Christ came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". He came in the likeness of the atheist, the agnostic, the pagan, the homosexual, the scribe, the Pharisee, the prostitute, the tax collector, the beggar, the servant etc. He spoke to them in a language they could understand. Christ teaches the farmers or shepherds by telling them stories about sowing and tending sheep. He talks to the Pharisees by pointing to the law they know so well.

Paul quotes pagan philosophers or poets, and points to their own pagan deities to proclaim the gospel. He literally points out that he became a gentile to save the gentile. He spoke to them using terms they could understand.

 

[shnarkle]

I suppose some do.

The Scriptures don't sanction unzipping in these circumstances, and Christians wouldn't call this tyrannical...

That's not the point. The point is that is what they were taught. There's no doctrine of the Trinity in the scriptures either, but that doesn't mean it's not true. To say that Christians wouldn't call this tyrannical is the fallacy of the No True Scotsman".

 

[shnarkle]

I suppose some do.

A good point to concede, and an even better reason to focus our attention of the church rather than those who are already aware of their own damnation, and thus a few steps ahead of those who are oblivious.

 

[farouk]

That's not the point. The point is that is what they were taught. There's no doctrine of the Trinity in the scriptures either, but that doesn't mean it's not true. To say that Christians wouldn't call this tyrannical is the fallacy of the No True Scotsman".

The word Trinity is not in the Scriptures but what the Trinity refers to is overwhelming in the Scriptures: Matthew 28; John's Gospel; Romans 8; John's First Epistle, etc.

(I'm not sure I follow your terminology; but maybe I'm not fully awake...)

 

[shnarkle]

The word Trinity is not in the Scriptures but what the Trinity refers to is overwhelming in the Scriptures: Matthew 28; John's Gospel; Romans 8; John's First Epistle, etc.

A distinction with no effective difference. There are numerous examples of blatant fornication as well, and nothing suggesting that there is anything wrong with it. We have blatant cases of fornication, genocide, deception, lying, and the bible is silent on whether or not there is anything wrong with these things " in these circumstances".

The atheist who fancies that they are an expert in logic, eventually walks away without further investigation, and why shouldn't he? There is no one who is willing to provide them with an apologetic in the first place.

 

[farouk]

A distinction with no effective difference. There are numerous examples of blatant fornication as well, and nothing suggesting that there is anything wrong with it. We have blatant cases of fornication, genocide, deception, lying, and the bible is silent on whether or not there is anything wrong with these things " in these circumstances".

The atheist who fancies that they are an expert in logic, eventually walks away without further investigation, and why shouldn't he? There is no one who is willing to provide them with an apologetic in the first place.

I think context is important; but we reckon with revelation as a whole in Scripture; and Hebrews 11.6 is important also.