Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Do Atheists Ever Become Christians? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

William Lane Craig invited two people, Dr. Holly Ordway and Stephen Notman, to talk about how they became Christians after spending the majority of their lives as non-Christians. It was very interesting. I love hearing testimonies of how God intervenes in lives to bring people to himself. I also really enjoyed William Lane Craig's prayer and invitation to accept the Gospel at the end. All there speakers in the presentation recognize and thank God for the gift of repentance and mercy. I thank God that Brian Auten posted this and i had a chance to listen to it. Both Holly Ordway and Stephen Notman have blogs and Brian was gracious enough to have links to their sites. Follow the link to hear the lecture. The picture is from Stephen Notman's blog of Ordway and Notman with William Lane Craig.

Do Atheists Ever Become Christians? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

18 comments:

  1. No, a True Atheist(tm) can never become a hristian. If someone who claims to be an atheist becomes a christian, it's only because they were a hypocrite and never a True Atheist(tm) to begin with.

    HA!

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, it's impossible. True Atheists(TM) cannot become christians. Some book says so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What book? The Bible says that Atheists can become Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some book somewhere, doesn't matter. The bible says lots of wrong stuff. Everyone knows True Atheists(TM) cannot become christians, and if they do, they were only false converts to True Atheism(TM).

    See how silly this is?

    ReplyDelete
  5. About as silly as saying the Bible "says lots of wrong stuff." Scratch that...it's as stupid as saying the Bible "says lots of wrong stuff."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, because there actually is a bowl shaped dome with holes in it over the earth and plants actually existed before the sun was created... Sure...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, we're back to your "understanding" - flawed as it is. We've been over this. I gave you answer after answer on that, Pointed out the resources, but you persist in your comfortable rebellion against God. As I said John and Paul had you pegged.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Right, "wrong stuff" is intentionally vague. And that's how you (all believers over time) can continue to reconcile a book with "wrong stuff" in it as divinely inspired. You just keep moving the "wrong stuff" over to the allegoy/metaphore column and try to keep what you can in the revelation column.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see you have a poor memory. I never defended the creation account that way and you never responded. Way to bring up Straw men. You excel at that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If I recall, you defend it as if it was a human observer watching Genesis 1-3 unfold in a vision.

    So that brings up the obvious point that revelation can be wrong (i.e. misunderstood).

    ReplyDelete
  11. um no. If the human observer is seeing it he is only telling you was he experienced not communicating was someone for orbit would have seen. Again, no rebuttal? In the theory of special relativity, an observer traveling at 0.6 of the speed of light experiences time differently than an observer on earth (confirmed by experimentation). Is one correct and the other wrong? Does one misunderstand? No.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow... what in the sam hell are you talking about? Of course I have no rebuttal to that gibberish. Try again, maybe take a breath and go slower?

    PS: I understand how special relativity works but you didn't explain in the least how it applies to some Sumerian or Hebrew supposedly seeing a vision of the creation of the universe.

    PPS: you can't make a statement and then say "no rebuttal" in the same post.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was talking about how what you wrote was not a rebuttal and neither is the subsequent "ideas" [lol..courtesy laugh] you commented. Of course you didn't understand. If you can't see how the example from relativity shows how multiple observers can see things differently and still be telling the truth then you don't understand special relativity....just like the observer describing what one would see while the earth was being created.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who are the multiple observers traveling a different speeds collaborating on Genesis?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Work this into your reconciliation of cosmology and scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you are adding the problem of infinite regress to cosmology?


    That gets rid of the "who created the creator" question. Infinite regress is no longer a logical fallacy. Science just proved it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the universe is cyclic, how do you explain that observational evidence has ruled out the "Big Crunch" in favour of a heat death model?

    Are you saying that observational evidence is out the window because you read something in a book that refutes it?

    ReplyDelete