Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer


euphgeek

Recommended Posts

Do you accept that fact that you might be wrong in your belief and that Jesus/Bible God/The Bible is all false and that you've been duped into following a lie?
I believe there is such a God as the Bible God.

 

The Bible is a collection of books (with a long, long history) with God-inspired words written down by men. However:

 

The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authority will not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritual change in man. The Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes and give personal conviction concerning the Scripture's self-witness: "Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God" (I Cor. 2:12).

 

We must be especially careful not to confuse this with subjectivism, which is ultimately relativistic. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; it must be teamed with the objective self-witness of the Scriptures themselves.

 

Moreover, this work of the Spirit is not an individual or idiosyncratic matter, as though the internal testimony operated uniquely upon one person by himself. Thus it is the corporate church, not mystical religious mavericks, which recognizes -- through the Spirit's gracious, internal ministry -- that the objective self-witness of the Scriptures is genuine.

 

IF it's all false, i'm wrong and been duped with a grand lie; then at my death bed i'll surely know for sure. Until then,

The wisdom of man cannot be relied upon to judge the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:20-25). Indeed, in its natural condition, man's mind will always fail to receive the words of God's Spirit: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God...he cannot know them because they are Spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14).

Fine... nice response...

 

 

How about you answer the question now, instead of dancing around it? It's pretty simple... a yes or no answer.

 

Oh, and if your answer is yes, would you search for the knowledge that would prove you wrong and accept it, rather than trying to explain it away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    213

  • Ouroboros

    147

  • Antlerman

    102

  • Jun

    51

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Bible is a collection of books (with a long, long history) with God-inspired words written down by men. However:

 

The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authority will not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritual change in man.

Ok, let's get this straight. The Bible saying of itself "I'm right", is objective? How? If I say I am the King of Minnesota, and that fact that I said it is objective proof. Surely, you are smarter than this?

 

Then it says that such a claim becomes a valid claim, once you accept it as a valid claim by believing in it. Does this make sense? "Once I believe it is true, then that will be my proof." WFT sort of circular nonsense is this? You can apply that to any wild claim under the sun to make it true, but it's meaningless.

 

The Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes and give personal conviction concerning the Scripture's self-witness: "Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God" (I Cor. 2:12).

As I said, this is not objectivity. This is basing validity on an emotional response. And when this emotional response wants it to be true, then your emotions will defend that belief against all reason and evidence that shows this line of reasoning to be faulted to the core. No, science is wrong! The earth is 200 years old! (just as bad as that with everything they claim as authoritative truth by this fashion of illogical thought processes),

 

We must be especially careful not to confuse this with subjectivism, which is ultimately relativistic.

Ahh... but this is subjective truth! Therefore your authoritative witness is relativistic, not objective. Bible truth is YOUR truth, not THE truth.

 

The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; it must be teamed with the objective self-witness of the Scriptures themselves.

"Objective self witness". Now that's an oxymoron! :lmao: Objective means it can be corroborated independently. Self witness is not a corroboration. You can claim anything you want, proving it is not going to be done by you pointing to yourself as a witness.

 

Moreover, this work of the Spirit is not an individual or idiosyncratic matter, as though the internal testimony operated uniquely upon one person by himself. Thus it is the corporate church, not mystical religious mavericks, which recognizes -- through the Spirit's gracious, internal ministry -- that the objective self-witness of the Scriptures is genuine.

That sounds impressive, and might be if it wasn't leaking profusely out of every vowel and consonant. This epistimological approach is pure subjectivity against the face of reason, and falsely claims to be objectivity. It is not. This is contradictory, and nonsense.

 

I would respect this more if he just said its all subjective and being objectively true really doesn't matter because it feels good to believe. But NO! He has to violate the sanctity of rational thought with this pseduo-intellectual pig vomit.

 

IF it's all false, i'm wrong and been duped with a grand lie; then at my death bed i'll surely know for sure. Until then,

The wisdom of man cannot be relied upon to judge the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:20-25). Indeed, in its natural condition, man's mind will always fail to receive the words of God's Spirit: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God...he cannot know them because they are Spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14).

No, actually you won't know it at your death bed. The loss for believing it is felt here and now in every day of your life you live. If you don't care about intellectual honesty, then go ahead and live ignoring reality if that in fact makes you feel blissful. However, I value my mind and need something that allows me to be honest with myself. To believe that crap above I would have to have huge portions of my brain removed first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Antlerman... I didn't want to grace the bull Pug spewed there with a point-by-point post detailing just how insane and ridiculous it was, so I'm glad you did.

 

Maybe he'll pay attention to you, since I always mock anyone who doesn't give me the answer I like... :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you accept that fact that you might be wrong in your belief and that Jesus/Bible God/The Bible is all false and that you've been duped into following a lie?
I believe there is such a God as the Bible God.

 

The Bible is a collection of books (with a long, long history) with God-inspired words written down by men. However:

 

The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authority will not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritual change in man. The Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes and give personal conviction concerning the Scripture's self-witness: "Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God" (I Cor. 2:12).

 

We must be especially careful not to confuse this with subjectivism, which is ultimately relativistic. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; it must be teamed with the objective self-witness of the Scriptures themselves.

 

Moreover, this work of the Spirit is not an individual or idiosyncratic matter, as though the internal testimony operated uniquely upon one person by himself. Thus it is the corporate church, not mystical religious mavericks, which recognizes -- through the Spirit's gracious, internal ministry -- that the objective self-witness of the Scriptures is genuine.

 

IF it's all false, i'm wrong and been duped with a grand lie; then at my death bed i'll surely know for sure. Until then,

The wisdom of man cannot be relied upon to judge the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:20-25). Indeed, in its natural condition, man's mind will always fail to receive the words of God's Spirit: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God...he cannot know them because they are Spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14).

First I want to thank you for mentioning me in your search for knowledge, so thank you.

 

Next, I will echo what Antlerman said regarding the quote you posted about subjectivism and objectivism. He couldn't be more correct.

 

Then finally, I would like to go to the entire chapter of I Cr 2:

 

1 Corinthians 2

1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. [a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.

God's Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

"What no eye has seen,

what no ear has heard,

and what no human mind has conceived—

these things God has prepared for those who love him"

10 for God has revealed them to us by his Spirit.

 

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit within? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. [c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

"Who has known the mind of the Lord

so as to instruct him?" [d]

But we have the mind of Christ.

 

Okay...let's take your quote here from whoever that was:

 

Moreover, this work of the Spirit is not an individual or idiosyncratic matter, as though the internal testimony operated uniquely upon one person by himself. Thus it is the corporate church, not mystical religious mavericks, which recognizes -- through the Spirit's gracious, internal ministry -- that the objective self-witness of the Scriptures is genuine.
Who was Jesus if not a mystical, religious maverick?

 

Look at verses 6 - 9 and then compare that with what that person said in the quote.

 

This chapter speaks of internal emotions and understanding. "For who knows a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit within?" Having the mind of Christ means that you are able to feel (yes subjectively) and experience the wonders of life/God/Awe/Etc. You don't have to be a Christian in order to understand this. Jesus understood this and many, many more people of the world today understand this without being a Christian.

 

Jesus didn't want people to worship him, he wanted them to learn from him so they too could understand. He knew they couldn't understand the way they were going (his audience), so he told them that they won't find God unless they come to him. He wanted to teach them, he didn't want them to just shift their same type of understanding from one type of God to another, which is what happened with most Chrisitians of today. I don't think he would have cared at all if once they understood what he was talking about if they chose to thank him and be on their way. He wanted a shift in thinking which didn't happen for the most part. The good news never got out! People went from Pharisees to Christian Pharisees and missed the entire point.

 

This subjective feeling may be something that everyone can attain, but it isn't something that can be measured outside of people.

 

I'll put my little bit of insight in here again and see if you understand what I am really trying to say. Compare it with this chapter.

 

That's the problem...people are supposed to grow out of the need for the myth because once you can experience this awe, it is no longer needed. But, people pay so much attention to the words and take them for truth that the truth disappears. That is why, IMO, many atheists are more spiritual than the most devout Christian. They don't need any myth to experience the wonders of life. The truth isn't the story and can never be put into words. And besides, where would the church be if people outgrew the myth?

 

I find comfort knowing that I don't have to know in order to know. I also find comfort in understanding that all religions are relating their lives to their subjective experiences of God. They are stories of the God/s. They all have merit, but none contain the Truth™.

 

One more thing. I decided to use the Luke quote that you also use. Read again what I bolded above in the Chapter and if you can understand where my thoughts are, you will be able to understand why I use it against Christians. They killed him because they didn't understand what he was teaching.

 

"What no eye has seen,

what no ear has heard,

and what no human mind has conceived—

 

This is in Hindu thought also.

 

The bible tells you that it won't be found in words of wisdom. How can it be? All one can do is to point the wahy with words. Myths do this...spiritual speakers do this...the awe of nature does this...Jesus did this...Buddha did this...the list goes on. All these speakers speak with the voice of "spirit" pug. It will sound completely stupid to anyone that can't recognize the words for the pointers that they are. The words aren't the truth, but merely point to it.

 

Once again:

 

That's the problem...people are supposed to grow out of the need for the myth because once you can experience this awe, it is no longer needed. But, people pay so much attention to the words and take them for truth that the truth disappears. That is why, IMO, many atheists are more spiritual than the most devout Christian. They don't need any myth to experience the wonders of life. The truth isn't the story and can never be put into words. And besides, where would the church be if people outgrew the myth?
Now, maybe, you can understand what I said in the first part of that quote of mine:

 

I am saying that the truth can't be found in any understanding because what is not physical can't be understood. It is a necessary part of the physical, but just as illusive as trying to look at the back of your own head (without a mirror). It will escape your inquiry because you are trying to look at the very core of what you are. That probably won't make much sense to you right now, but maybe later on in your life it will.

 

With that said, the truth isn't contained within a single book or any book. There are parts of the truth and it is everywhere. There is no way you, or I or anyone can comprehend God. Books and ideas are pointers only to try to get you to 'feel' what you are. It is purely emotional and can be nothing else. I don't discredit emotions, but emotions are subjective and your experience of God/Awe/Wonder is supposed to be subjective. Even those they don't believe in God/s experience this and there is no reason for them to attribute it to any God. I choose to use the word God because it gives my understanding more meaning. Others don't need that at all. Lay down the law and move beyond your understanding of the basics of the myth.

 

Maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, the task of figuring out how to deal with the different folks here is a treasure chest of unknown knowledge in itself. Amen?

I'm not in the habit of saying Amen anymore Pug. However, I do agree. This is a very diverse crowd here at Ex-C and learning to navigate the various personalities can be an act of stepping into the unknown.

 

I have a certain affinity for seekers and if you are truly a seeker then I wish you the best of luck. I can't know if one day you too will be an exChristian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe?
NBBTB, I think you've got it spot on, which leads me to quote Mr.A's very learned post especially:
If you don't care about intellectual honesty, then go ahead and live ignoring reality if that in fact makes you feel blissful.

Well, i believe ordinary folks are not like you people - dissecting and what not - maybe some religions are for the masses after all - for those who do not question so deeply or intellectually. As long as they feel blissful. In Buddhism that has to be achieved through self (meditation, discipline,etc). In other religions with god/s, isn't it "easier" to call for their help? IF all of the people in the world could understand what NBBTB has just sermoned, there would be no religion ... or just one religion. And world peace, that would be so welcome!

 

However, I value my mind and need something that allows me to be honest with myself. To believe that crap above I would have to have huge portions of my brain removed first.
See above. A lot of humans refuse to use their minds when it comes to religion, don't you think? (and what is wrong with that?)

 

Do you accept that fact that you might be wrong in your belief and that Jesus/Bible God/The Bible is all false and that you've been duped into following a lie?

This question is like the "did you beat your wife recently" question? Answer yes; you're screwed, answer no; you are forked. Well, lesser of the two evils - i might be wrong, but i still believe there's a God. If i've been duped into following a lie, who duped the fellow who duped me? The bottom line is this: if you've experienced what i've experienced and witnessed what i've witnessed i bet you won't be so quick to deny God His day.

 

Who knows God's plans? In Islam, they too proclaim there's only one God and He is Allah. And the Jews? There are, at present, 5 major "world" religions. What if you ask each one of them your cleverly worded question? I think it will be a big "no" every time.

 

P E A C E (not forgetting bliss)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you accept that fact that you might be wrong in your belief and that Jesus/Bible God/The Bible is all false and that you've been duped into following a lie?

This question is like the "did you beat your wife recently" question? Answer yes; you're screwed, answer no; you are forked. Well, lesser of the two evils - i might be wrong, but i still believe there's a God. If i've been duped into following a lie, who duped the fellow who duped me? The bottom line is this: if you've experienced what i've experienced and witnessed what i've witnessed i bet you won't be so quick to deny God His day.

 

Who knows God's plans? In Islam, they too proclaim there's only one God and He is Allah. And the Jews? There are, at present, 5 major "world" religions. What if you ask each one of them your cleverly worded question? I think it will be a big "no" every time.

 

P E A C E (not forgetting bliss)

*sigh*

 

And your answer is?

 

 

 

Pug... it's a very simple question, so why all the tap-dancing around it?

 

If you answer yes, then you're showing that you are able to learn... but if you answer no, if you believe without doubt, you'll never learn.

 

 

Going by what you've written, it's pretty obvious it's a no... it's also obvious that you know what that means and you don't want to face it. Thus, you answer without answering and fail to realise that we can see right through your pathetic attempts to avoid the question.

 

If I'm wrong... if you do indeed doubt your beliefs, then correct me. Given everything you've posted, you don't.

Thus we come back to what started this little topic... "You believe you are right, that you know what's Truth™, so you refuse to learn and will not become wise... I doubt I am right, so I seek knowledge and, over time, become wise."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe?
NBBTB, I think you've got it spot on, which leads me to quote Mr.A's very learned post especially:
If you don't care about intellectual honesty, then go ahead and live ignoring reality if that in fact makes you feel blissful.
Well, i believe ordinary folks are not like you people - dissecting and what not - maybe some religions are for the masses after all - for those who do not question so deeply or intellectually. As long as they feel blissful. In Buddhism that has to be achieved through self (meditation, discipline,etc). In other religions with god/s, isn't it "easier" to call for their help? IF all of the people in the world could understand what NBBTB has just sermoned, there would be no religion ... or just one religion. And world peace, that would be so welcome!

Thank you pug. :thanks:

 

Just one more thought...I'm just curious about how blissful a person can feel while believing that there are billions of people that they consider wrong or damned.

 

I think it would be my dream that people keep the religion that they are comfortable with as long as they understand that God/Essense doesn't have favorites. The other won't be damned for believing something different. We are all in this together regardless of what we believe and since there is no proof either way, why not accept that what another believes is their own path to divinity which may be different from anothers?

 

Animonsity towards another only fosters negative feelings which aren't very blissful, IMO. But as long as groups of people claim superior knowledge or understanding, this will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBBTB, I think you've got it spot on, which leads me to quote Mr.A's very learned post especially:
If you don't care about intellectual honesty, then go ahead and live ignoring reality if that in fact makes you feel blissful.

Well, i believe ordinary folks are not like you people - dissecting and what not - maybe some religions are for the masses after all - for those who do not question so deeply or intellectually. As long as they feel blissful. In Buddhism that has to be achieved through self (meditation, discipline,etc). In other religions with god/s, isn't it "easier" to call for their help? IF all of the people in the world could understand what NBBTB has just sermoned, there would be no religion ... or just one religion. And world peace, that would be so welcome!

You know Pug I almost hate to say this publicly, but you make sense here.

 

Where I want to take this is that religion does two things. One is it gives a common language, if you will, that people identify themselves through with those in their society and culture. To challenge someone who adopts religion on this level is basically to threaten their ability to relate to the world they are part of. It's not about a deep personal devotion to a chosen path, but an image of self-identity through the very language they use.

 

Secondly, religion offers a philosophical discipline and a methodology for self-improvement or self-discovery. Looking only at Christianity you have the vast majority in the first camp I mentioned above, then those fewer individuals who seek for more in life on a deeper personal level. This is true in all religions. This is true in secular society as well.

 

I have friends who are thinkers, poets, philosophers, artists. I also have a friend who is a salesman. Bigger questions of life are a distraction to him, they cause his head to hurt. He justs want to keep it simple so he can be happy. He is an enjoyable person to be around. But I and those more like me are not satisfied with not questioning ideas. I guess that comes from not being satisfied trying to conform to some group image. I have much too deep of a sense of my own identity.

 

Religion doesn't offer a path that works for me. Is that wrong? Should I tell OM that her pursuit of meaning should take my path as a Secular Humanist? Should I tell her that she should consider atheistic existentialism instead of the mystical traditions of Christianity? Should you tell OM that she needs to be an Evangelical? Should you tell me that I need to believe in the Evangelical version of God?

 

The reason that different philosophies and disciplines exist is because they need to.

 

As far as though who don't approach life looking for answers to bigger questions (the majority who are part of any religion), is it wrong for them to not look deeper? Is it OK for my friend the salesman to just be happy with having a big SUV he can display to his friends as a symbol of his success? Should I tell him he needs to focus more on the greater questions of life? Should he tell me I need to buy a big truck to impress the neighbors with? Again, everyone is different. Everyone has their own sense of truth for themselves. Some are content have simple answers and that's all they'll ever need.

 

Bottom line, I reject notions of absolute truth. I reject the belief that any one person or group has a truth that is the one for all people everywhere. Let me ask you this, if there was such a truth, and most people want answers, either simple or complex, if such a system did exist wouldn't it just happen without needing politicians or holy jihadists forcing people to adopt it? The truth for all everywhere, is that there is no truth everywhere for all.

 

So if someone is happy believing God tucks them in at night and will be there to carry them home when they die, then if that makes them happy and that's all they want from life, who am I to judge them? By the same token, if that type of belief or religious system fails to inspire me to become what I am driven to become, who are they, or you, or anyone else to say my choices are in error? By what almighty standard do you judge, and can you defend it? All you will see me argue against is those who claim they have "the answer", not which truth is the better truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all in this together regardless of what we believe and since there is no proof either way, why not accept that what another believes is their own path to divinity which may be different from anothers?

 

Ms.NBTB and Mr. A: I do agree with most of your well-thought out points. I'm just upset that some folks here think that i'm as intolerant as to want to force my beliefs on them. No such thing (not to mention no such luck). No person's choice is ever in error!!! Ever, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all in this together regardless of what we believe and since there is no proof either way, why not accept that what another believes is their own path to divinity which may be different from anothers?

 

Ms.NBTB and Mr. A: I do agree with most of your well-thought out points. I'm just upset that some folks here think that i'm as intolerant as to want to force my beliefs on them. No such thing (not to mention no such luck). No person's choice is ever in error!!! Ever, ever.

Awesome! I am so glad to hear you say that. We are just used to the typical responses from Christians that I know that we, at least myself, is pretty quick to expect those responses from all of them. Very, very few are as open to other's beliefs as you seem to be.

 

Again...thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ExPagan

This might be a good topic to pin. Every Christian I have ever posed these questions to has never been able to give me a straight answer:

 

1) Which one better describes an all-loving God: a.) One that gives human beings one chance only to get it right and if you don't condemns you to an eternal hell, or b.) One that allows you multiple chances to get it right so that you can spend eternity in the best place possible?

 

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

 

4) Where in the Bible does Jesus say that people must worship him or pray to him? Doesn't he identify himself as the "Son of Man" who was sent by the Father?

 

5) Jesus himself and his disciples seem to believe in reincarnation, as evidenced in Matthew 11:10-15, Matthew 17:10-13 and John 9:1-2. Why is the word of Paul in Hebrews 9:27 taken over Jesus in Christian doctrine?

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

You have some very good questions – very clear and straight-forward. I’m going to attempt to answer them but I’d just like to say that I’m no theologian. I’m no scholar and I don’t have the answers to everything. I’m basically just a Christian, a true follower of Jesus Christ, and I will do my best to answer your question….

 

1) Which one better describes an all-loving God: a.) One that gives human beings one chance only to get it right and if you don't condemns you to an eternal hell, or b.) One that allows you multiple chances to get it right so that you can spend eternity in the best place possible?

 

God HAS given us multiple chances. Think about this…’the wages of sin is death’. That means the very first time you committed a sin, I mean a willful, defiant sin, He could have killed you and He would have been just. Think back to that candy bar you stole when you were five years old, and think of every lie you’ve told, everything else you may have stolen, in fact go through the 10 Commandments and check off every one you’ve violated. Then look at your age and what you should be asking yourself is this.., ‘after all these years of sinning against God, why has He allowed me to go on living for “X” number of years?” Do you know why you’re still breathing???? Because God loves you and wants to give you a chance to repent and turn from your evil ways and receive Him into your heart and life so that you won’t suffer hell for eternity.

 

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

There is a lot of debate on this subject within Christiandom and you will get different answers depending on who you ask. Some do not believe that you burn for eternity but you just cease to exist. There are verses that seem to support that but we human, being fallible as we are, will have different interpretations. But I will give you what I think is the truth.

 

You have two realms – the physical and the spiritual. There are different laws for both.

 

While you are alive in your mortal body, there is punishment and reform which is implemented by prisons and correctional facilities. The earth, and everything in it, on it, and around it is finite, and will disappear. It has a beginning and an ending in other words.

 

On the other hand, we have the spiritual, we have our souls (which are spirit) and will not die. It goes on eternally when separated from the body (which is the very definition of death). Since our souls live on forever, we have to have a destination that lasts forever too. Make sense?

 

There are plenty of warnings in the Bible about hell being eternal and what you have to do to avoid it. Nowhere in Scripture does it say hell is a place of reform. Reform connotates release which will not happen.

 

Also, the idea of ‘punishment’ is not exactly what’s going on. It’s not so much that people are being punished for something as their sins are being atoned for. This can get deeply theological and I don’t want to fry your brain. To “forgive” a sin does not mean it is taken away but rather that person is relieved of his debt. All sin must be paid for (or atoned for) because God is a holy, pure God and He cannot look upon sin. He could not look upon us either because we are sinners. So Jesus had to die to atone for our sins. But if a person refuses to receive Jesus, then he is piling up the sins into ‘his account’ until the end comes. (judgment). Every sinner will have to pay his debt for every sin he’s ever committed (which is the suffering in hell in different degrees. Each one pays according to what he has done. The length, eternity is a given for reasons I’ve explained above. Everyone lives eternally but there are different degrees or levels in hell. (heaven too for that matter) Hitler will not be punished the same way as a person who did not murder but followed other gods for example. The worse you are, the worse you suffer. The length is always eternal. But the Bible warns of these things so it’s no secret.

 

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

 

It doesn’t matter what what denomination within Christianity you belong to, it all comes down to this….are you a born again believer in Jesus Christ? Have you repented of your sins, died to yourself and do you follow Him daily? Do you exude fruits of the Spirit?

 

Denominations:

There are saved Christians in every denomination because it’s not about denomination but where your heart is and if the Holy Spirit is living in you. There are born again believers who have some strange views on things and this will happen because we all have minds and we all think differently and will have our own opinions.

Other Religions:

I asked the same thing when I was a witch, and when I dabbled in Satanism and lots of other things. Being a preacher’s daughter, I rebelled mightily. I looked to all the other religions of the world but I was a skeptic. I didn’t want to just have “faith” based on nothing and I thought all Christians were brainwashed. So I wanted evidence or proof that the Bible was true because if that was true, then I knew God was real. All the religions were filled with rhetoric or new agey type thought but nothing solid that would lend validity to their belief. But Chrisitanity offers MUCH evidence as to the validity of the Bible as well as God in the scientific field, (from secular scientists) archaeology and prophecy. Science does NOT disprove the Bible like many like to say but is in harmony with it. The truth is science was wrong first but the Bible had it right the whole time. (got the paper on how science proves the Bible if you want to see it – pm me) No other text or ‘sacred writing’ can make the claims the Bible has and prove itself to be true in so many different ways. I would be a fool if I didn’t believe it!

 

4) Where in the Bible does Jesus say that people must worship him or pray to him? Doesn't he identify himself as the "Son of Man" who was sent by the Father?

 

Jesus is part of the trinity therefore God. So we can pray to Jesus and God.

John 14:14 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my [Jesus] name, I will do it.

1 Corin. 1:2 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

 

As far as his identifying himself with the Son of Man, that denotes his earthly lineage – in other words saying he is of the line of Joseph. The Jews kept strict records of lineage back then so that was a way to state it. That does not mean He was born of a man’s seed because He was not – but born of God.

 

5) Jesus himself and his disciples seem to believe in reincarnation, as evidenced in Matthew 11:10-15, Matthew 17:10-13 and John 9:1-2. Why is the word of Paul in Hebrews 9:27 taken over Jesus in Christian doctrine?

 

This has nothing to do with reincarnation. He was quoting an old prophecy of a messenger that would precede Jesus named John the Baptist. He was given the name Elijah because Elijah was the greatest prophet for Jesus in boldness so it is understood that he was given the spirit of Elijah – not that he would be Elijah himself.

 

It is appointed unto men to die once, but there are instances where Jesus raised people from the dead for specific reasons or special cases. But as a whole, we die once. There is no reincarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Chrisitanity offers MUCH evidence as to the validity of the Bible as well as God in the scientific field, (from secular scientists) archaeology and prophecy. Science does NOT disprove the Bible like many like to say but is in harmony with it. The truth is science was wrong first but the Bible had it right the whole time. (got the paper on how science proves the Bible if you want to see it – pm me) No other text or ‘sacred writing’ can make the claims the Bible has and prove itself to be true in so many different ways. I would be a fool if I didn’t believe it![/color]

Welcome ExPagan. I'm going to let other's respond to your other points you raise, but this one above is where I will challenge what you are saying.

 

In a sense you are right, science does not disprove the Bible, per se'. It depends who's reading the Bible. The Bible is taken many, many ways, so it isn't a single thing that is disproved. However science does clearly in fact disprove certain groups ideas that they get from how they choose to read the Bible. The age of the earth being one that leaps to mind instantly. That man was literally made from dirt and spittle is another.

 

There is overwhelming mountains of evidence which for all intents and purposes offers irrefutable evidence to the contrary of beliefs like the earth being 6000 years old, or that evolution is not responsible for the origin of the species. Not everyone reads the Bible literally and see the Genesis story as a mythological tale that speaks to human ideals, not some historical accounting of actual events. So to the first group, science disproves their beliefs, to the second group, what science looks at doesn't pertain to questions of human questions of spiritual value. That's philosophy’s job.

 

BTW, a great many of these other evidences that the typical apologist offers are usually dismissed by mainstream Christian scholarship as highly biased and unfounded claims. But if you mean to say that the Bible says there was a city called Jerusalem and archeology supports this, this does not prove "divine authorship" however. All things like this prove is that whoever wrote it probably lived at the time the city was there and they saw it. That fact doesn't lend credibilty however to their other claims of fantastical things like flying messiahs and streets full of human zombies. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Carl Sagan.

 

There is nothing whatsoever scientific in the apologists defense of his beliefs. They reject criticism, not utilize it to help shape their ideas of how to understand something. They start with the answer, and then look for evidence to support it. A scientific approach on the other hand starts with the evidence, and then comes to a conclusion about what that evidence is telling us. Read my two signatures below as a prime illustration of this marked difference in determining objective knowledge.

 

BTW, I find it interesting that you identify yourself as a “true follower” of Jesus. What does this suggest? That you judge yourself as somehow more sincere than other followers of Jesus? Does this suggest you think you have the true doctrines and they don’t? May I offer a suggestion? Maybe you should drop the “true” part of that. It sounds arrogant to others.

 

I look forward to your responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I find it interesting that you identify yourself as a “true follower” of Jesus.

 

:HaHa: It always stands out, doesn't it? Every christian who's ever come in here has been a true follower, regardless of their flavor. Odd that we need to point out to them how this sounds.

 

Perhaps someday we'll get one who says - "I'm a christian. I don't really think I'm a true christian, but I'm a christian nonetheless."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is appointed unto men to die once

 

Hi expagan. I thought I'd look for some common ground with you. I highighted here everything that you said that I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have two realms – the physical and the spiritual. There are different laws for both.

 

Oh, wait - I found another statement I think I can agree with.

 

That is, if one of the laws you speak of here is the "law of reality". :58:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since our souls live on forever, we have to have a destination that lasts forever too. Make sense?

 

What do you mean, since our souls live on forever? Is that supposed to be an automatic assumption that everyone knows to be true?

 

Before you can convince a great number of us here of an eternal destination for the soul, you'd need to convince us that we have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I offer a suggestion? Maybe you should drop the “true” part of that. It sounds arrogant to others.

And arrogance show pride, pride is a sin, hence ExPagan isn't a true/complete/perfect Christian.

 

I think most "I'm a true whatever" use the word as a buzzword. Very much like "New and improved" that's on every box of tooth paste. You know they use same or similar formulas which minor changes, and it's not improved or do the job better. It's new, but not better. But it sounds good when you put it on the box, so people buy it because it say it is improved. Same thing with these "true xyz", they just say it to sound better, to make people believe them more. A "True Patriot" sounds better than just "Patriot" doesn't it, even though they basically mean the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a true polyatheist.

 

When it comes to the gods, I'm truly sure that all of them are truly nonsense.

 

:woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm a True a-Gnu-stic Duh-ist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a True ExChristian™. I am a True Person™.

 

So if someone re-converts back to Christianity, should we say they were never a True ExChristian™? :shrug: I mean, if we were predestined to be saved and can't become an ExChistian™, then we would need to be predistined to become a True ExChristian™ and consequently could not become a Christian because we were predesitined to eternal damnation, in His blessed wisdom and mercy.

 

Oh thank the stars for the mind of John Calvin who gave the world the doctrine of predestination!! :loser: (read signature below for further glimpses into this clear thinking mind that has shaped the face of Evangelical Christianity as we have it today).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ExPagan

I'm so used to posting on Christian boards so when I used the word "true", I assumed you guys knew what I meant. Obviously I was wrong...so let me explain. "true" Christian has nothing to do with pride or arrogance or I think I'm better than somebody. It doesn't have anything to do with you guys or any non-Christian. I'm speaking within the Christian camp. As you know, there are many denominations hence MANY different beliefs. "Christian" has become a generic term and many strange and opposing beliefs (within Christiandom) are housed under that term. When I say "true Christian", I'm really saying that I do not adhere to the WOF beliefs (word of faith), I do not believe in manifestations of the Holy Spirit such as pogoing in the spirit, laughin in the spirit, gold dust, slain in the spirit, barking, cackling, yelling, speaking in tongues when used improperly and out of context, binding and loosing, labyrinth walks, contemplative prayer, or giving birth in the spirit, seed faith, making vows, prayer cloths, basically anything from the "charismatic Christians" out there because they are heretical and absolutely not Biblical. By "true Christian" I am saying I follow what the Bible says without all the extra frills that some Christians like to add to make their faith more interesting.

 

There are a lot of things I've seen from this site that speak of those other types of Christians I mentioned, of which I don't believe in and it is contrary to what the Bible teaches, so I can see where some people would be confused or get upset. But please don't assume that all Christians are alike because we are not.

 

So No, I don't think I'm better than anyone, I don't have any special knowledge of truth, I'm not special and I'm nobody. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is appointed unto men to die once

Hi expagan. I thought I'd look for some common ground with you. I highighted here everything that you said that I agree with.

Oh goodness, that made me chuckle pretty hard Mythra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laughin in the spirit, gold dust, slain in the spirit, speaking in tongues when used improperly and out of context, basically anything from the "charismatic Christians" out there because they are heretical and absolutely not Biblical.

 

Gah... looks like i'm not 100% proof true then?

 

I've witnessed our youths laughing in the spirit. Gold dust episodes were witnessed to me by my daughter. The slain in the spirit episodes among our church members are especially disturbing to me (at first). How can they fall (faint?) just like that. I've only fallen once myself. And i do speak in tongues (in or out of context i do not know). This gift came to me earlier than my wife who converted one month earlier. But she speaks more often than me now.

 

After reading the charismatic (mainly US) sites, i've come to the conclusion that the Charismatics are viewed with a "favoured" light - tolerated somewhat like JW and Mormons.

 

But speaking in tongues is quite common here (even in some non-charismatic denominations)! But expectedly, RCs consider that as speaking to the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ExPagan
laughin in the spirit, gold dust, slain in the spirit, speaking in tongues when used improperly and out of context, basically anything from the "charismatic Christians" out there because they are heretical and absolutely not Biblical.

 

Gah... looks like i'm not 100% proof true then?

 

I've witnessed our youths laughing in the spirit. Gold dust episodes were witnessed to me by my daughter. The slain in the spirit episodes among our church members are especially disturbing to me (at first). How can they fall (faint?) just like that. I've only fallen once myself. And i do speak in tongues (in or out of context i do not know). This gift came to me earlier than my wife who converted one month earlier. But she speaks more often than me now.

 

After reading the charismatic (mainly US) sites, i've come to the conclusion that the Charismatics are viewed with a "favoured" light - tolerated somewhat like JW and Mormons.

 

But speaking in tongues is quite common here (even in some non-charismatic denominations)! But expectedly, RCs consider that as speaking to the devil.

 

Speaking in tongues is for the body. If it does not edify the body, then it is not of God. How you test this is this....is there an interpreter? God will not grant the gift of tongues within a congregation without an interpreter. If someone speaks in tongues with no interpreter, then no one can understand it and so it doesn't edify the body. And it certainly won't edify you because you cannot interpret it while speaking it at the same time because you can only speak one thing at a time. He is a God of order.

 

Everything else you spoke of us not Scriptural. Even the slain in the spirit part - there was never a mediator (someone touching another person) which induced this. People always fell down before God, (speaking of John while at Patmos), or Jesus (just before being taken away to be crucified). There was never a human involved like there is today - that's why I say it is heretical. Gold dust has no Biblical foundation whatsoever, neither does laughing in the spirit.

 

If an entire church is laughing in the spirit, then you're seeing more than that because it never stops there. The Holy Spirit is not abiding in that church but a false sense of the Holy Spirit ie. demons. Yes I said it! If the Holy Spirit is absent, Satan abounds and those people are being lead by Satan while thinking it's the Holy Spirit's manifestation. Sadly they are deceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.