Quite some time back I came across something written by an atheist. To my knowledge I have had very few encounters with true atheists and the ones that I have had have left me...disturbed, for lack of a better explination. I don't claim to fully understand the belief system of an athiest, or the lack of a belief system. I don't even claim to partially understand it. All I know is that they deny the existence of God. Should I know more? Maybe but I do not feel led to further learn their standings on any particular matter. What I do know is that the very few encounters that I have had with athiests have felt very much like butting my head against a brick wall. I got nowhere real fast.
But then again I have had much the same experience with professing 'Christians' that are Armenians. It's just a matter of who, or what, they put their faith into and they usually cannot be shaken from that faith. An Armenian does at least profess the existance of the Lord and therefore gives you a placeof connection however flawed that belief might be. An atheist on the other hand...well, there is nowhere to start with them because they are disdainful of all of Scripture and lack any belief in a higher power, particularly God, and so they pretty much shut you down from the first word you say. Nothing you say after that gets anywhere with them. At least not in my limited experience.
My husband once told me...'he's an atheist. Don't waste your time debating with him.' And he was right. I tried and tried and got nowhere fast.
All that to say...I have little experience with atheists and what little I have had was disheartening to say the least. And so when I came across this short snippet written by an atheist I was intrigued. Not because I in any way shared their belief but because their thoughts were so far removed from my own and because that short bit of writing gave me insight into the thought process of a group of people that deny with their mouths the Lord I hold so dear.
This bit of writing was about the Bible. I would love to quote it here but that isn't an option so I must content myself of giving a summary of what was written.
This atheist wrote that they were more agnostic than atheist but that came after a profession of being an atheist, whatever that means. I guess it means this person is more than an atheist and less than an agnostic? I really don't know and I don't suppose it matters, whatever they are, they are lost, unregenerate, and writing out of their lost and sinful nature. This person admitted to believing there is probably some kind of 'omnipotent supreme being' in control of 'the universe'.
I can't even begin to grasp the mindset of someone that is agnostic/athiest and yet believes in a 'supreme being'. What exactly would this supreme being be? How would it operate?
I have no idea and I am not willing to put the research in to try and figure it out.
This atheist/agnostic implied that humans are a close minded lot with a very bad idea of what that supreme being is. Apparently Christians have it wrong as do all other belief systems...what then would this 'supreme being' look like?
The snippet of writing went on to say the Bible is wrong, the Koran is wrong, that all holy books are wrong. They admitted to talking to others, many of whom were supposedly church goers that all agreed with their thought process.
According to this person 'holy books' have given us much in the past but are no longer relevant. Why? Have we come so far as a human race that we no longer need the Lord of all? I have heard that college professors, among others, claim and teach that God is a crutch for poor people, that their lives are so bad they need some kind of hope so they must believe in an imaginary being that somehow makes it all better. Have we come that far? Did our distant ancestors need holy books that are no longer relevant to our modern times?
But here's the thing, from that point this atheist almost seems to me to prove his own point wrong. In a rather disjointed way he went on to say people are incapable of whispering a sentence to each other, passing it through several people, without messing it up. Their point, I assume, was to say that the Bible and any other 'holy ' book must be inaccurate because people mess things up and the Bible has been passed down through centuries.
A couple of years back I did some research into the history of the Bible, a fascinating subject, and read many things about just how amazing it is that the Scriptures came to be and how most of the authors never met, never read the others writings, and yet the different parts all correlate.
And yet this atheist says the Bible can't be right because it would have been messed up with each 'retelling'. No doubt there are some messed up versions out there. I would even agree that the changing of just one word can and does ruin the point to a whole section of Scripture. And out of all those differing versions, different 'holy books' as the atheist called them, we have many varying belief systems.
That is a simple, sad truth. It would seem that if people had only 'kept the facts straight' in Scripture, in the 'holy books', than we wouldn't have all these mixed up beliefs but that isn't the case. People have been believing erroneously since almost the beginning of creation. It is a flaw in the sinful hearts of men to seek after...something.
Scripture tells us that all men know the existence of God because all of creation points to it's Creator and yet some will deny that knowledge.
The Lord has protected his Scriptures, kept them holy, and reserved them for his people. For as long as their is time on earth there will be the written word of the Lord. People may do their best to corrupt and distort it through intention or error but the Truth will be preserved.
The Lord has allowed all these other versions to pervert his Truth while also preserving his Word for those that He has not allowed to be deluded.
And so...I have read and reread that atheists words, wondering, thinking, marveling at his thought process. Almost amazed at his thinking. How does one come to such a convoluted theory that they can both make a good point and prove their own point wrong at the same time, without realizing they have just done that?
No comments:
Post a Comment