The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
. Diaspora Jews historically observed the festival for eight days, and most still do. 
You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon, that the women rested on a Saturday, and that the empty tomb was discovered early on a Sunday morning. However, the Gospels differ as to whether the Feast of Passover was on Friday or on Saturday in the year Jesus was killed; thus they provide conflicting evidence as to exactly which calendar year it could have been. According to astronomical calculations, the 15th of Nisan in the Jewish lunar calendar fell on a Thursday evening / Friday in AD 27, while it fell on a Friday evening / Saturday in AD 30 and AD 33.
Problem: The Last Supper was or wasn't the Passover meal
Verses: Mark 14:12-18, John 19:14-15, others; Status: Serious
According to the synoptics, the Last Supper appears to have been the Passover meal. On the other hand, John's gospel seems to tell us that Jesus died before the Passover meal.
Synoptics: the Last Supper was the Passover meal
It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:
And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.
And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me." (ESV)
These verses certainly give the impression that the meal being eaten is the Passover meal. The disciples ask where the Passover meal is to be eaten; they go there; they prepare; later Jesus arrives; and they do indeed eat a meal. The meaning seems obvious.
Matthew 26:17-21 is almost identical. Meanwhile, Luke 22:8 is even more explicit that Jesus fully expected to eat the Passover meal:
So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." (ESV)It's mysterious why Jesus would say this if he was fully aware that he was going to die before the Passover meal.
John: the Passover meal was still to come
John says that, as the Last Supper was getting started, Jesus sent Judas Iscariot away. This is John 13:27-30:
Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. (ESV)This seems to imply that the group did not yet have what they needed for the Passover feast, which would mean the feast was yet to come. Further evidence for this is provided by John 18:28, where Jesus' accusers were delivering him to Pilate:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (ESV)Finally, John seems to explicitly say that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover. This is Pilate handing over Jesus, at John 19:14-15:
Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." (ESV)"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I've researched all possible avenues for many years and I always come back to Christianity as the most plausible. So it's a waste of my time to discuss issues that I've discussed many times in the past. Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
So Lee, did you read the transcript thinking "Ehrman got his ass handed to him" or did you make that determination after you read it?
TGBaker doesn't need to be an anti-Christ - you're doing a great job on your own.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
No, anyone with any logic and reason would find a way to test a claim before they go around selling it or buying it.
Virgin births do not happen. YOU LOSE
Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis to become a zombie god. YOU LOSE
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
"To begin, we see that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that it was the first day of unleavened bread. In Matthew 'Feast of ' is not in the original text and Mark and Luke state specifically that it was the day of unleavened bread in which the Passover Lamb was slain. This is explained by understanding that unleavened bread was also eaten with the Passover meal on the fourteenth day of the first month (Ex. 12:
. Therefore, it was the first day in which unleavened bread was eaten. However, following the one-day Feast of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread continued as a seven-day feast from the fifteenth of the month until the twenty first day (Lev. 23:4-8). During this feast an offering made by fire was done each day. Since this would be a total of eight days, the Lord's Sabbath would also occur during this time. Therefore, not only would the usual sacrifice be done on the Sabbath but also the one done during the seven-day feast. This explains why John calls this Sabbath a 'High Day' (John 19:31). Furthermore, we need to understand that sometimes all days were called 'the Passover' (Luke 2:41; 22:1; Acts 12:3-4) or the seven days were the 'Passover Week' (John 18:28; 19:14). Also, the Sabbath, the day of rest, was on a Saturday. Concerning John 19:14, "the day of Preparation" does not mean the day of preparing for the Passover. In the first century "the day of Preparation" meant "the day to prepare for the Sabbath" -- in other words, Friday. It is this usage which is relevant in John 19:14. Thus, "the day of Preparation of the Passover" means "the Friday of Passover week." John is referring to the Preparation Day before the Sabbath and states this clearly in 19:31. By this reasoning all the gospels will be in agreement. Therefore, the Last Supper was Passover night, and Preparation Day of the Sabbath was the next day in which Jesus was crucified."
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Mark's explicit claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is contraindicated by his statement that Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud for Jesus on Good Friday; which would not have been possible if it were a festival day.Mark's explicit claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is contraindicated by his statement that Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud for Jesus on Good Friday; which would not have been possible if it were a festival day.
here is what another evangelical says
The time of day of Jesus' crucifixion is difficult to determine. Mark's Gospel seems to give one time while the Gospel of John appears to have a different chronology. Such historical questions about the Gospels are difficult to answer simply because the Gospels are not intended to give that kind of historical information. On one level, it is entirely appropriate to maintain strongly that the Gospels are historical in nature. That is, they are grounded in actual historical events whether or not we have access to the details of those events. Otherwise the Bible is little more than cosmic myth. However, that does not mean that the writers were trying to recount historical detail in the same way that we in the 21st century Western world would expect historical detail to be given, which is what creates a problem for us as we ask historical questions.
This problem is compounded by the modern idea of absolute biblical inerrancy, which contends that any feature of the biblical text no matter how seemingly insignificant must be 100% accurate in all of its details in order for any part of the Bible to be true. While many proponents of biblical inerrancy want to deny it, that position grows out of a modern scientific rationalism that will only affirm something to be “true” that can be grounded in provable, or declared, “fact” (see The Modern Inerrancy Debate). However, the Bible simply will not yield to that kind of rationalism, whether it is atheistic scientific rationalism or Christian apologetic rationalism.
None of that makes the question of the timing of the crucifixion irrelevant; it only means that there may not be a satisfactory historical answer in Scripture, which is why the issue is problematic and debated. One aspect of the problem lies in what is known as the “Synoptic Problem.” This simply expresses the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the “synoptic” Gospels) do not always agree on various details of the Gospel tradition while at other times they match word for word (see The Gospels and The Synoptic Problem). The fact that John’s Gospel differs significantly from the Synoptics in the chronology of Jesus’ life, including even the day on which Jesus died, further complicates the issue
Here is a short chart comparing the time references surrounding the crucifixion in the Gospels:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
27:1 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death.
15:1 As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council.
22:66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.
18:28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning.
19:13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside... 14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon.
15:25 It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him.
27:45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
15:33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
23:44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon,
27:46 And about three o'clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
15:34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
27:57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.
15:42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
23:54 It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.
19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation,… 19:38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea,…
27:62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate…
16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.
24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.
20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb...
A quick reading of this easily reveals that it is Mark and John that do not agree. According to Mark, Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the morning and died shortly after his so-called "cry of dereliction" at three o'clock in the afternoon. However, John's Gospel still has Jesus before Pilate at noon, with no other time frame given for the actual crucifixion. All four accounts agree that Jesus was dead by evening of that day.
There is virtually no way historically to reconcile these accounts relating to the time of the crucifixion. However, if we move beyond presuppositions that want to force the Bible to speak to our modern questions of absolute historical accuracy, we may have other ways to read the text in light of how it was written and how it was intended to be heard.
All this suggests that the purpose and organizing principle behind the Gospels is not historical and chronological, but theological. Another way to say this is that the historical details serve the theological purposes of the writers. That does not mean that they invented history. It only means that, contrary to our scientifically conditioned perspective, the details were not as important as the message.
So, for example, In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden and Mark tells us that Jesus was crucified at nine the following morning. Yet in John's Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noon before Passover, the very time when observant Jews would begin the preparations for Passover by removing leaven from the house. John presents Jesus’ death against the background of the Passover, with the crucifixion occurring at about the time the Passover lambs were being killed in the Temple. When we remember that the first Passover was the beginning of the Exodus event, the defining revelation of God in Jewish history, John’s linking of the crucifixion with Passover in this way becomes a powerful theological affirmation of what God is doing in human history in these events. John’s Gospel is not so much concerned with chronology as it is concerned with helping us understand the significance of this event in light of God’s revelation throughout Israel’s history. He is, in fact, writing theology, not history.
The author of John wants Jesus to be the Passover Lamb and thus the difference in chronology from another evangelical:
John's gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John's gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John's gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke.... Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John's gospel he doesn't. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover.
So here's the scene in John's gospel: on the day leading up to Passover, and Passover will commence at 6 o'clock with the evening meal, on the day leading up to that Passover meal is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the temple to get their lamb for the passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time. And in John's gospel that's the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John's gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for passover. John's gospel is forcing us, dramatically at least, through the storytelling mode, to think of Jesus as a passover lamb. Jesus doesn't eat a passover meal, Jesus is the passover meal, at least within the Christian mind in the way that John tells the story.
Wiki:
In the Jewish calendar, each day runs from sunset to sunset, and hence the
Last Supper(on the Thursday evening), and Jesus's crucifixion (on Friday afternoon), both fell on the same day. In John, this day was the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar; that is the day on the afternoon of which the Passover victims were sacrificed in the Temple, which was also known as the Day of Preparation. The Passover meal itself would then have been eaten on the Friday evening (i.e. the next day in Jewish terms), which would also have been a Sabbath. In the Synoptic accounts, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and so Jesus's trial and crucifixion must have taken place during the night time and following afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan. In favour of the Synoptic chronology is that in the earliest Christian traditions relating to the Last Supper in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a clear link between Passion of Jesus, the Last Supper and the Passover lamb. In favor of John's chronology is the near universal modern scholarly agreement that the Synoptic accounts of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin on a festival day are historically impossible. By contrast, an informal investigation by the High Priest and his cronies (without witnesses being called), as told by John, is both historically possible in an emergency on the day before a festival, and accords with the external evidence from Rabbinic sources that Jesus was put to death on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. Astronomical reconstruction of the Jewish Lunar calendar tends to favor John's chronology, in that the only year during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when the 15th Nisan is calculated as falling on a Wednesday/Thursday was 27 CE, which appears too early as the year of the crucifixion, whereas the 14th of Nisan fell on a Thursday/Friday in both 30 CE and 33 CE.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
No.
People like yourself, only undermine the position you espouse, even more.
The problem is that everything you point to as evidence, is anecdotal.
Trying to bolster them, by certifying them as 'facts', only undermines your abilities at being objective. That much is very easy to see.
Folklore is legend.
Notes from people, are not facts.
Other religions equally certify their collections of 'notes' as 'facts', which obviously contradicts ancient christian folklore.
So, the only logical position, is that there is much controversy among the notes that are written throughout antiquity, as you are all in a pissing contest, with each other.
You agree with yourself.
Big deal.
What does that mean?
That your opinion changes the folklore into facts?
Then it would be incredibly illogical for you to be here in the first place, and incredibly illogical for you to want to lecture people who are much happier in their knowledge.
Your statement is a non sequitur.
It's simply nonsensical, in the strongest sense of the word.
You would have your work cut out for you to prove the many accounts in the bible, are even possible, to begin with.
Which undermines you claim of what constitutes logic and reason.
Much like a mentally disturbed person in a straight jacket, claiming that the wards are crazy to have put him in a straight jacket.
Simply alleging that anyone with logic and reason would consider notes from people, as the absolute truth, is not being very objective.
The beauty of living in the information age, is that it's only a Google search away, to find mountains of examples of people who consider the ancient folklores as nothing more than literature.
And it's a great thing, that our schools and legal systems, are secular, and ignore the uncivilized, ignorant, bigoted, barbaric and blood thirsty malevolance that's not only condoned, but instructed, for it's proponents to carry out, in those ancient anecdotes.
Simply put, many 1st world countries are simply more evolved than that, and have decided that those kinds of manifestos are uncivilized, and unlawful.
So, what were you saying about anyone with 'logic and reason'?...
(Top 10 atheist countries)
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1428&bih=745&q=top+ten+atheist+countries&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&fp=e1d57483344a3fed
Who is out if touch with reality here?
Modern, 1st world governments, mandatory school systems, cutting edge science, and hundreds of millions of non religious people,..........or you?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
redneF,
I've noticed in my last few posts that your politeness ways are rubbing off on me.
It ain't pretty, bein' easy, is it?
bein' easy huh?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Isn't there a forum dedicated to arguing about bible errancy?
I like having that forum in place, so I don't stumble onto bible errancy threads. Easily the most pointless form of rational debate I can fathom
Ad hominems mean nothing to me. I have to respect someone first, before their opinions mean anything to me. And people have to earn my respect. So, most people are sh1t outta luck.
It's typically for theists to speak out both sides of their mouths.
Preach how their faith is about love and then spew anger, intolerance and hatred out the other.
I don't expect any less of them.
Which is why I started that thread, pointing out very clearly, that the legendary god of the bible, if he were a reality, would epitomize a sociopath, with severe bipolar disorder.
It's not atypical, for people who care about someone, to be in denial of the mental health of the one they have feelings for.
People do it with pets, even.
So, these kinds of people who are out of touch with reality, are incredibly common. And their typical knee jerk reactions, are to attack everyone who tries to objectively demonstrate reality, and the reasons why they're not being, both practical, and objective.
There are simple cognitive behaviour tests to determine when people are deviating from reality. You can pick up brochures at your local drug store, most times, that are general guidelines for that sort of thing. Mainly to determine the soundness of mind, of elderly people in your family.
Eye tests are commonplace, but, 'reality checks' are not. So, it's completely predicatable, to see the levels of mental health issues we see even in 1st world countries.
George W. Bush, being a prime example.
Fortunately, the president is merely a figurehead. He could babble all he wanted to about a 'holy war', to appeal to the masses that helped elect him, when in reality, there was simply a geo-political war that was decided among nations.
A lot of theists, still somehow seem to think that America is a nation under a Christian god, when every indication is that our society is not structured in ways that are compatible with that idea.
Then there is the segment of theists, who see very clearly how America is secular, and are very angry about it, and are trying desperately to try and get a foothold in using the education system to indoctrinate their wild ideas, based on the ignorance of desert dwellers from over 2000 yrs ago, who held concepts that a modern young child would simply laugh at, of an immaterial brain in the sky, that made the universe, and everything in it, by no explicable means.
America, and other 1st world nations didn't evolve to be a world leaders in science, medicince and technology by taking that sort of poppycock seriously. They turned to practicality, and science.
It was only logical, and rational to do so.
Evolve, or regress.
What theists believe, and what reality is, were never mutally inclusive.
Just open up a history book, or even simpler, turn on the TV, or even look out your window.
What they 'believe' matters little to those who don't agree with them, It would only matter if they were in control...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
And I did - after i was told "no" by God. What's your point? Should I have stuck around to change the mind of an unchanging God? You sound like the Christians who respond to people who prayed for healing and didn't get it the first time with "Well, you just didn't have enough faith".
Or did you just not bother to read my post because what happened to me didn't match your view?
I read your post. To what exactly did God say no to? And are you sure he said no? I think to rationalize this, i'd need to know more detail of exactly what happened, but then again, that might get to personal for a public forum, so we don't need to go there either. An example of what happened is good enough.
I wouldn't say you should have stuck around to "change the mind of an unchanging God" rather stuck around to comprehend why the answer was no and what was to come of it. Sounds to me as if you got an answer, then chose to turn away from a God you know exists rather than not believing. Am I wrong?