Post has attachment
Hello to everyone! Don't forget World Food Day on 16th October 2017 #WFD2017 #ZEROHUNGER please watch this video to see why it's so very important! Remember this when you're eating your lovely delicious dinner tonight in your cosy warm home and all of your comforts. You might not be able to provide food for everyone. But you can at least help one single human being. Share your dish. Share humanity. For more details: Thanks guys!

How to Share the Gospel With Atheists

Last week I sat next to James on a flight from St. Louis to Denver. As we talked the subject turned to spirituality and religion. I confessed that I was a preacher and he confessed he was an atheist. What unfolded on the rest of the flight was a deep, thought-provocative, laughter-laced gospel conversation.
Over the years I’ve had the privilege of engaging many atheists like James in various settings. I’ve discovered five helpful tips when sharing the gospel with someone who claims to not believe in God.
1. Don’t be shocked and do ask tons of questions.
Some atheists like to shock Christians with the fact that they don’t believe in God. This brand of atheist pulls the pin on the “there is no God”grenade and drops it in the middle of the conversation, expecting Christians to run for cover.
Don’t be phased. As a matter of fact start asking questions about their atheism. Find out what they mean by atheism (some are agnostics but call themselves atheists.) Ask questions about their background. Were they raised in church? Do they have any Christian friends? Where were they educated about atheism?
And remember that, as you ask questions, your goal is not to trap them but to understand them. Find out areas where you agree. Just like Paul found common ground with the athenians when he discovered an altar “To the Unknown God” we can find common ground in a mutual rejection of legalistic religion, a passion for science and reason and, usually, an overall positive view of the historic Jesus.
Although James spoke somewhat negatively of religion he spoke well of Jesus. While he didn’t view Jesus as the Son of God he did perceive him as an enlightened soul. At the minimum that was something I could build on in making my own case for Christ.
2. Listen deeply for the real “why.”
Often atheists have a reason (other than “reason“) for becoming atheists. Listen for it. Sometimes it’s anger over losing a loved one. Other times it’s that they were hurt by the church in some way. But often there’s a “why” behind the lie they are embracing.
In John 4 Jesus masterfully attacked the why behind the lie that the woman at the well was embracing. She was not an atheist but a hedonist who thought that satisfaction could be found if she finally found the right guy. But Jesus offers her living water to satisfy her deepest needs and, finally, her thirst was fully quenched.
James shared with me about his upbringing in England and his regular attendance at The Church of England. He told me about how his wife had left him and how he could only see his kids every other weekend. James shared how he reads at least a book a week and how he loses himself in novels.
As he shared I couldn’t quite nail why he was an atheist but I could sense that he was a lonely man. My heart went out to him and I think he could sense my sympathy.
3. Connect relationally.
Atheists are real people with real feelings. They laugh, cry, talk and connect like anyone else. I think that too many times Christians treat atheists as objects and not people.
James and I joked together as we sparred each other. I listened to him and he listened to me. Bottom line is that I like James. He is an interesting guy with an interesting story.
We should heed Paul’s reminder to Timothy about how to deal with those who disagree with us theologically,
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:23-26
4. Down deep inside, they do believe in God.
There are no people who genuinely rejects the existence of God. Sure, there are many who claim that God’s existence is lie but down deep inside, they really do believe there’s a God.
Why? Because Scripture makes it clear in that there are no real atheists:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-22).
They may try to suppress their belief in God but, sooner or later in the discussion, atheists say something like, “Well if God is so good then why does he allow….” This is the point in the conversation where they have “forgotten” their atheism and revealed some of their challenges with, not the reality of God, but the nature of God.
When you assume that an atheist does really believe in the existence of God it gives you the freedom not to have to prove God’s existence but to share God’s story. You can be sure that, down deep inside, the gospel is churning in the soul of the atheist.
5. Frame the gospel as a love story (that just happens to be true.)
When I shared the gospel with James I wasn’t trying to prove God’s existence, I was simply sharing the story of God’s love. I said something like, “James, at the core of Christianity is a love story. Jesus put it this way, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him will not perish but has everlasting life.’”
I could tell that James was intrigued by this view. He listened respectfully and asked thoughtful questions.
Yes, I dipped into some apologetics at this point (C.S. Lewis’ Lord, lunatic or liar argument, Teleological argument, etc) but only after I had framed the gospel as a love story. In the words of my friend Bill Jack, too many times too many Christians use apologetics as a sledge hammer instead of a crowbar to pry open closed minds. As a result the conversation turns argumentative instead of respectful.
James and I had a respectful conversation where I heard him and he heard the good news of Jesus. My job is not to lead him to Jesus but to “set forth the truth plainly” and let the Spirit of God continue on him even through me.
James didn’t say the sinner’s prayer when the plane pulled up to the gate after landing. But I believe that somewhere between Denver and St. Louis the Spirit of God nudged him closer to Jesus. It is my prayer that, in God’s perfect time, he will cross the line of faith and receive Jesus as his Savior.
Let’s love the atheists we encounter as we humbly and gently introduce them to the God who loves them even more.

"What is true religion?"

Religion can be defined as “belief in God or gods to be worshipped, usually expressed in conduct and ritual” or “any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics.” Well over 90% of the world’s population adheres to some form of religion. The problem is that there are so many different religions. What is the right religion? What is true religion?
The two most common ingredients in religions are rules and rituals. Some religions are essentially nothing more than a list of rules, do’s and don’t's, that a person must observe in order to be considered a faithful adherent of that religion, and thereby, right with the God of that religion. Two examples of rules-based religions are Islam and Judaism. Islam has its five pillars that must be observed. Judaism has hundreds of commands and traditions that are to be observed. Both religions, to a certain degree, claim that by obeying the rules of the religion, a person will be considered right with God.
Other religions focus more on observing rituals instead of obeying a list of rules. By offering this sacrifice, performing this task, participating in this service, consuming this meal, etc., a person is made right with God. The most prominent example of a ritual-based religion is Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism holds that by being water baptized as an infant, by partaking in the Mass, by confessing sin to a priest, by offering prayers to saints in Heaven, by being anointed by a priest before death, etc., etc., God will accept such a person into Heaven after death. Buddhism and Hinduism are also primarily ritual-based religions, but can also to a lesser degree be considered rules-based.
True religion is neither rules-based nor ritual-based. True religion is a relationship with God. Two things that all religions hold are that humanity is somehow separated from God and needs to be reconciled to Him. False religion seeks to solve this problem by observing rules and rituals. True religion solves the problem by recognizing that only God could rectify the separation, and that He has done so. True religion recognizes the following:
1. We have all sinned and are therefore separated from God (Romans 3:23).
2. If not rectified, the just penalty for sin is death and eternal separation from God after death (Romans 6:23).
3. God came to us in the Person of Jesus Christ and died in our place, taking the punishment that we deserve, and rose from the dead to demonstrate that His death was a sufficient sacrifice (Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
4. If we receive Jesus as the Savior, trusting His death as the full payment for our sins, we are forgiven, saved, redeemed, reconciled, and justified with God (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9).
True religion does have rules and rituals, but there is a crucial difference. In true religion, the rules and rituals are observed out of gratitude for the salvation God has provided – NOT in an effort to obtain that salvation. True religion, which is Biblical Christianity, has rules to obey (do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc.) and rituals to observe (water baptism by immersion and the Lord’s Supper / Communion). Observance of these rules and rituals is not what makes a person right with God. Rather, these rules and rituals are the RESULT of the relationship with God, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone as the Savior. False religion is doing things (rules and rituals) in order to try to earn God’s favor. True religion is receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and thereby having a right relationship with God – and then doing things (rules and rituals) out of love for God and desire to grow closer to Him.

The guilty of those who reject the way of truth

The way to salvation is only one. Or God will condemn all except those who follow Christianity, or all but those who follow Islam, or all but those who follow Hinduism and so on. Since God does not contradict himself and that Christianity contradicts Islam etc., all people who died by rejecting the only way of truth will be guilty and therefore condemned (John 14:6). Those who died and did not come to know of Jesus as the only way to salvation, did know the truth about God, for what can be known about God is plain to all people. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So people who deny the existence of God are without excuse. Those who died refusing the existence of God will be held guilty, because they have refused the truth about the existence of God aware that they should accept it (Romans 1:18-22).

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

I want to point out that 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 refers to people who will not believe the truth during the time of the antichrist, just before the return of Jesus; but this biblical passage can also be applied to people of today and of the past. Taking into consideration a Muslim that in some way who came to know about Jesus as the only way to salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 makes it clear that at least once in his life (I say at least once because can be several times) God has put him in front of a Crossroad, because, as mentioned earlier, this Muslim came to know of Jesus as the only way to salvation. If this Muslim is now a Muslim, it is because at least once in his life, he refused to follow the way of truth (that is, Jesus as the only way to salvation) and followed another (that is, Islam). Note that Islam states that Jesus existed but says that he was a prophet like so many and not the son of God and the only way to salvation. Let's suppose that when was a child, this Muslim came to know of some essential truths about Jesus through the Quran. The Quran denies these truths; unlike the Bible which doesn't deny them. The truths themselves about Jesus are just those denied by the Quran. Therefore the Muslim came to know of some essential truths about Jesus through the same truths denied by the Quran. Let's also suppose that this Muslim has read the biblical passages about the essential truths about Jesus. Since he has chosen to choose the wrong way by rejecting Jesus as the only way to salvation, God has sent him a strong delusion as punishment, that is, through demons he has continued to make him believe in the lie of Islam as the unique way to salvation. It is also possible that God has repeatedly put him in front of this crossroad, but he continued to choose Islam. By doing so, he has taken pleasure in unrighteousness, because there are no excuses to reject the truth. The reasons can also be the fear of losing the family, friends, life, etc. to follow Christianity, but he still remains guilty, because has refused the truth for selfish reasons one or more times (he has taken pleasure in unrighteousness). He is guilty because was aware that he had made the wrong choice one or more times, since the truth prevails over anything else.
It is possible that this Muslim, at various times of his life, is completely deceived to believe that Islam is the only way to salvation, because God has sent him a strong delusion one or more times, due to the fact that he decided to choose the wrong way one or more times. If he dies convinced that Islam is the only way to salvation, he will still be held guilty, because it remains the fact that he has decided to choose the wrong way one or more times. He will be condemned not to inherit eternal life (John 3:18).
Buddhists, Hindus and all people who follow other religions which reject Jesus as the only way to salvation will also be condemned.

Post has attachment
Day 1- Let's know everything about the Goddess- Shailputri - The pooja-vidhi, vrath and mantra.

Post has shared content
How long can you sleep? Actually all of us can sleep without limit as God wills, as death comes to all of us and we will sleep till our souls are awakened again for judgement. This was proven true for the 7 followers of Christ who ran from Roman persecution and slept for 200 years (according to Christian records) and 309 years according to the Quran.

Hence people built a shrine over them and ended up worshiping them. The archeological evidence exist for this event in history. Read
votes visible to Public
Poll option image
Only a day or two
Much longer upon death

Post has shared content

Rationality, Logic, Philosophy, Belief, Free-Will, Consciousness, Metacognition, Mind, (Super)naturalism, and Faith: A comparative analysis relating each to (a)theism by a former strong atheist turned theist

Fair warning: Off topic, trolling, immature, ignorant, or inflammatory comments may be deleted at my discretion. This is a long, in-depth post - it's not just about the meme nor is it a quick, easily digestible read.

Theists believe that something unknown/unverifiable is potentially possible whereas Atheists claim that something unknown that is unfalsifiable/unverifiable is statistically insignificant/improbable/impossible. Atheists don't accept scriptures as an authority because they're epistemologically "weak" sources since they are circularly defining their own authority (rightfully so). However, regarding the epistemological issue of knowledge through spiritual confirmation (mutually exclusive of scripture or religion) atheists will also label such claims as irrational; all the while dismissing the actuality of this reality that binds us to those definitions is unquestionably finite, evolving, and subjective.

Atheists label theistic belief as irrational yet ironically fail to realize the underlying inability to reconcile that metacognition/reasoning/philosophy/logic necessitates free will. Atheists provide deductive claims/arguments for or against knowledge/truth/probabilities without recognizing that deduction is irreconcilable within naturalistic determinism while appealing to conjectures within unfathomable metaphysical theories of reality which are irreconcilable through evidentialist empiricism as a means of countering theistic ontologies. (Philosophy requires logic, logic requires fact, fact requires knowledge, knowledge is weighed by epistomology, epistomology requires deduction, deduction requires desire, desire requires choice, choice requires metacognition, metacognition requires consciousness, consciousness requires (insert giant unknown here))

Atheists claim the sole possession of rationality which is the basis and foundation for "truth" through the use of deductive arguments. Paradoxically for atheists, rationality requires that one presumes that logic/reason was "created/eventuated/just happens" at some assumed point/time that is post emergence/life - or that they're absolute (greater problems defining the philosophy of absolutes). Ironically, rationality requires that one first be willing to even be willing to allow for the possibility of a god. In the last analysis, strong atheists will arrive at naturalism or even solopsism (depending on level of skepticism) which basically means that they're only sure about whatever they've experienced along with any knowledge determined through empiricism, though the acceptable order of merit in epistemic certitude may differ between experience and empiricism.

The foundational (a)theistic issue, IMO, is the actuality of the reality of mind and/or consciousness and the metaphysical implications/meanings of all our known unknowns. (not to mention unknown unknowns, known unfathomables, unknown unfathomables, unfathomable knowns, unfathomable unknowns, and the incomprehensible meta-meaning of "meanings") Atheists must presuppose philosophical definitions on those topics (unfortunately requiring begged questions and ad/post-hoc logical fallacies) while assuming that our minds must be able to comprehend everything solely through reason and logic; else it's unreal or unknowable.

1. The totality of reality (nature) is unknown and unverifiable.
2. The actuality of perceptible reality (material) and corresponding potentialities of beginnings/endings/absolutes (infinity/eternity) are unknown and unverifiable.
3. The tools of knowledge acquisition of perceptible reality are only applicable to perceptible reality necessitating potential reality totality to be unverifiable and unfathomable.
4. Physical law is unknown despite actuality of semi-validated theories.
5. Natural law is predicated upon items 1-4 above and is philosophically circular in defining rationality thereby causing it to be unverifiable and unfathomable.
6. Biological/Chemical constituencies of consciousness and "life" are unknown and unverifiable (perhaps only currently).

As such, basing an argument for rationality on the known unknowns of physical reality and the simple actuality of mind is metaphysically irrelevant. Unfortunately, rationality, like most philosophical or metaphysical topics, is not easily defined since the nature of everything is still contemplated within an incompletely understood physical reality and the nature of consciousness itself. Rationality implies ontological consistency but still requires the interpretation of mind which requires consciousness and functions within our experiential, finite, universal constraints. Since logic is the main aspect of rationality, it's also bound within those same constraints which necessitates that subjective belief structures and personal experience must impact one's formation of an ontological position - resulting in the impossibility of objectivity to define what is real or rational.

However, everyone is conscious of their consciousness and must use an undefined metacognitive ability to arrive at an ontological frame describing whatever this reality "is", individually. Atheism uses a "science of the gaps" argument to conclude (via faith) that whatever "is" should/must/probably rather be explainable without the possibility of anything "supernatural". Theism uses a "God of the gaps" argument to conclude (via faith) that whatever "is" should/must/actually be explainable with and because of the "supernatural". All the while both theists and atheists are aware of the unknown (super)naturalistic explanations of that which they've used logic/reason/faith to deduce. Therefore, arguing from known unknowns doesn't result in greater, or any, epistemic certitude - even if epistemically justifiable. Everything is based upon inductive experience; but not everything experiential is statistical, empirical, fathomable, or falsifiable. 

Atheists cannot discount spiritual experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as naturalism persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, never arriving at or even theorizing about an understanding for the emergence of consciousness. Similarly, the confusion about the experience of the certainty of God arises out of the dissimilar interpretations and relations of that experience by separate individuals and by different cultures. The experiencing of God may be definitely real, but the rationalizations and interpretations about God, being subjectively intellectual and philosophical, is always inconsistent and oftentimes confusingly fallacious.

God and spiritual experience can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. One's only assurance of God consists in one's own conscious perception of, belief resulting from, and experience with, things that are spiritual. To anyone having had such an experience, no argument about the nature or reality of God is necessary, and no argument against is convincing, because their "evidence" consists of a real (regardless of whether true) encounter (not simply from reading scriptural books). While to anyone never having had such an experience, no argument about the nature or reality of God is reasonable/rational, because no "evidence" can be scientifically, logically, or philosophically proven so all such real (regardless of whether true) experiences by others could ever be truly convincing. Convictions about God in religion may be arrived at through deductions or education of theologies, but only through personal experience can God be known. The theist dares to say, “I know,” even when this knowledge of God is questioned by the unbeliever who denies a credible possibility exists because it is not wholly supported by intellectual logic. To every such doubter the believer only replies, “How do you know that I do not know?”

Questions for self reflection:
1. Does rationality beg the question of (necessitate) free will?
1a. If yes then can free will be assumed as a rational philosophy of mind without summarily negating naturalistic emergence?
1b. If emergence isn't naturalistic then would defining or identifying rational belief be utterly meaningless? (Since any definition of rationality must therefore logically include any/all immaterial potentialities/agencies to impart or modify one's conscious ability to rationally arrive at supposedly (il)logical deductions)

2. If rational belief allows for an individual's acceptance of epistemological justification of any known unknowns or unknown unknowns; and rational analysis ability which leads to knowledge is dependent upon innate, varying mind capacities; and since no two individuals share exactly similar experiences, perceptions, personalities (including those associated internalized meanings); then can anyone's belief be objectively labeled as irrational?

3. Explain the origin, reality, and actuality of life, consciousness, superconsciousness, meaning, value, metacognition, death, emergence, desire, altruism, physical law, love, and existence. Any proof?

Theistic/Religious Epistemology - A comprehensive set of questions and resources for your self evaluation

Should God beliefs be rational or logical?

Should God beliefs depend upon or require empirical evidence to be justified? Why types of evidentialism are applicable to God beliefs?

Should God beliefs have any less probability of being justified as compared to any other knowledge within skeptical fallibilism?

Should God beliefs arising from perceptible knowledge be any less justified than empirical knowledge?

Should testimony accounts of God beliefs be considered as any sort of evidence or justification to others?

Should God beliefs be more or less justifiable within the framework of external foundationalism or internal coherentism?

Should God beliefs be uniformly objective as a universally abstract understanding or uniquely subjective in one's perceptible understanding?

Should God beliefs require naturalistic epistemology for justification if they're defined/described as super-naturalistic?

Should God beliefs be adequately comprehended or explained when they reference unfathomable concepts?

Should God beliefs be able to use such things as logic and metaphysics in or as justification?

Since God beliefs require consciousness and conscious interpretation, and consciousness is a known unknown, how can they be debated without fallacious logic- begged questions and circular reasoning?

Empirical evidentialism vs testimonial evidentialism: Comparing their Logic and Rationality within the epistemological justification of beliefs

Particular versions of evidentialism can diverge in virtue of their providing different claims about what sorts of things count as evidence, what it is for one to have evidence, and what it is for one’s evidence to support believing a proposition.

The epistemology of testimonially-based belief, then, concerns the epistemic status of S’s belief that p. Is it justified? Is it rational? Is it warranted? Is it sufficiently supported by evidence? Is S entitled to believe it? Does S know that p?

Empirical science is performed by fallible people, often involving much fallible coordination among themselves. It relies on the fallible process of observation. And it can generate quite complicated theories and beliefs — with that complexity affording scope for marked fallibility. Yet in spite of these sources of fallibility nestling within it (when it is conceived of as a method), science might well (when it is conceived of as a body of theses and doctrines) encompass the most cognitively impressive store of knowledge that humans have ever amassed. Even if not all of its theories and beliefs are true (and therefore not all of them are knowledge), a significant percentage of them seem to have a strong case for being knowledge. Is that compatible with science’s fallibility, even its inherent fallibility, as a method? Or are none of its theories and beliefs knowledge, simply because (as later scientists will realize) some of them are not? Alternatively, are none of them knowledge, because none of them are conclusively justified? That depends on what kind of knowledge scientific knowledge would be. This is a subtle matter, asking us first to consider in general whether there can be inconclusively justified knowledge at all.

Hume said, “[T]here is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and more necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators. … [O]ur assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses.” (Hume 1748, section X, at 74.)

Empircism questions
1. What usefulness, ability, or meaningfulness is there within empirical evidentialism beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
2. Is it even reasonable to require empirical evidence as a necessary aspect of a God belief and then reject God beliefs as unjustified if they're empirically unsupported?

Testimonialism questions
1. Given that there are so many people testifying to some sort of God experience causing their God beliefs, why wouldn't logic/rationality in itself demand some level of justification, credibility or credulity?
2. How many minor differences of perception between eyewitness testimonies do courts of law allow before rejecting the main point?
3. if the same inductive and potential causes fallible perceptions exist in humans then why should Empircism exceed testimonialism as "evidence" for a God?


About me: I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. These are simply my perceptions and fallible analyses. I grew up as a “devout atheist” – more like a smug anti-theist. I was generally a nightmare to contend with on topics involving spirituality/theism/immaterialism and have been the cause of many faithful believers to renounce their belief in God (I actually regret that). I have had legitimate spiritual encounters which I fully am aware are subjective and can never be philosophically/logically/rationally reasoned to anyone else. Suffice it to say, I know that I know that there is more than mechanistic materialism/humanism/naturalism and do hold firm personal beliefs on the nature/philosophy/reality of deity/god. I never proselytize or evangelize any of my beliefs – they are beliefs and are naturally subjective. However, I have realized how fruitless these debates (resident in intellectual understandings of mind) are for any sort of extrapersonal spiritual understanding. Unfailingly, they lead to resentment, derision, and combative division. Truly, one must have had a spiritual experience to understand one and one cannot comprehend the spiritual level of reality without one. I have read in totality the religious books (scriptures) of the major world religions and find them fascinating. Generally, they all possess flawed understandings resulting from innate, finite, limitations of understanding the infinite. However one chooses to live – by dogma, theology, or culture – I have no opinion. I only discuss these topics with others as a goal of causing self reflection and evaluation hoping that others will realize a level of selfless humility caused by knowing that we don’t really know anything.


Post has shared content
Is a god that makes your brain to be a atheist unjust, if he then condemns that person to eternal punishment?

Post has shared content
Sharing a Jehovah's Witness' POV

Post has shared content
#QuoteoftheDay ‘To adopt God’s lifestyle is to adopt God’s religion.’ - Lord Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi (
Wait while more posts are being loaded