Selfish Xians Won't Share Their Faith

[Neon Genesis]

I don't know anything about "forms of christianity" (or this "calvinism" that somebody keeps mentioning), I'm aware that there are different "forms", but I never cared to understand anything about them

If you're not concerned about Calvanism, why are you still posting in this thread and wasting our time?

 

(nor should we be concerned about what WAS done in the OLD Test., etc., the required "study" of the O.T. is a fallacy).

So, you're saying Jesus said a fallacy in Matthew 5:17?

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

 

1) We REASON (or calculate) "phenomenonological" information (but the creator is not directly observed/sensed by the five senses). We can only REASON that a creator exists by observing the EFFECTS of His existence ("invisible nature").

Even if we presume that a god exists, why should we presume that it's your god that exists and what evidence do you have that your interpretation of that god is the correct one? What gives you the right to speak as the spokesperson for god? You yourself siad human teachers are unnecessary, so why are you teaching the bible to us?

 

We have always seen the EVIDENCE that there is a creator (people ask for PROOF because they disregard the EVIDENCE).

The bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen, not that the universe is evidence. So, if you claim that the universe is evidence of a creator, then you're believing with the wrong evidence and you are not a real Christian.

 

 

 

So, you are right that a person's "NATURE" must be peaceful and just (Godly and holy spirit). A "christian" human being cannot understand this because they are busy BEing "christian" instead of a "person"/human (partisan). The "attitude change" must be in the MIND (Romans 12:2), because the "heart" cannot think, it can only "follow"/do what the mind tells it to.

 

I understand that my mention of "Jesus" makes my explanations seem partisan (club/brand like), but I really do believe that Jesus is the one that God sent (in time, the creator will convince you).

Are you ever going to answer my questions? If love is greater than faith, why do we need faith? And why don't you pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pluck the shard out of ours?

[mwc]

ONLY a "christian" has the right to call or think of someone as an apostate.

No new topics. Address this.

 

mwc

[been there done that]

Neon Genesis,

 

You said that...

"and you are not a real Christian".

 

1) I have mentioned the "WAY".

 

2) I have spoken against the "christian" teachings many times.

 

3) my PAST has PASSED. Whatever I am "EX" of simply has nothing to do with me anymore (I am not a "christian" at all). I belong to no group at all (God is not a christian either).

 

 

Jesus did fulfill/COMPLETE/FINISH the law. On the cross, He said "IT IS FINISHED", ...

 

Ephesians 2:15

"abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances"

 

and He told us we are to live under the PERFECT law...

 

James 1:25

"the perfect law, the law of liberty"

 

James 2:12

"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty".

 

 

 

 

"Faith" means...

 

...having the ability to...

 

1) believe IN something.

AND another kind of faith...

 

2) refers to the ability to believe THAT something is true/false.

 

We are to have both ("FAITH FOR faith". Romans 1:17). Our faith should ultimately come from LOVE for God.

 

1 Corinthians 13:13 is saying that we should have (abide by) all three, but the GREATEST is love.

 

"So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.".

 

Hebrews 11:6

We should have ..

 

1) faith THAT God exists.

and...

2) faith that He is loving kind. ("faith for faith"). Like many, many things, "christianity" doesn't know this, let alone understand it.

[mwc]

ONLY a "christian" has the right to call or think of someone as an apostate.

Address this.

 

mwc

[been there done that]

mwc,

 

If you like describing yourself as a "christian apostate", then, by all means, continue to do so.

 

When a Marine comes home from war, he does not sign his signature as "EX-MARINE MISTER SO AND SO". He does not introduce himself to people as "EX-MARINE SO AND SO". IF he was still an active Marine and he went AWOL (absent without leave), THEN, if he wanted to, he could describe himself as an "APOSTATE MARINE".

 

It is the same with christianity. You are not an ACTIVE "christian" (meaning that you are no longer IN VIOLATION of christian rules, you simply no longer have ANYTHING to do with christianity at all).

 

(but if you still insist on hanging on to the rules of christianity, your free will gives you the ultimate right to call yourself anything you want).

 

 

I used to describe/call myself as "A christian" (very dehumanizing, I was a "christian" first AND then a person).

 

That's all I'm talking about (that LABELS are dehumanizing). The Lord warns us about the dangers of "self abasement" in Colossians 2:18 because it is dehumanizing.

[LilaMae]

The ex-marine might not say "Hi, I'm the ex-marine!". But if he was on a support site for ex-marines, I can guarantee you that is what he would call himself. Likewise, I doubt mwc shakes someone's hand and introduces himself as "the apostate". While you may disagree with labelling yourself, an "apostate" is precisely what mwc is, according to the dictionary (although we know you think that's a dirty book).

 

 

"3) my PAST has PASSED. Whatever I am "EX" of simply has nothing to do with me anymore (I am not a "christian" at all). I belong to no group at all (God is not a christian either). "

 

Wow, you must feel so unique and special. If you were in a bicycle accident and cut your arm, it may be in the past, but you would still have the scars. You are still a continuance of the human being you were back then. Whether you like it or not.

 

 

"Jesus did fulfill/COMPLETE/FINISH the law. On the cross, He said "IT IS FINISHED", ..."

 

I disagree with your exegesis. How do you know what he was referring to as finished? See, this is the kind of unsubstantiated bullshit you keep spreading, trying to claim yourself as God's Final Arbiter of Truth.

 

Like many, many things, "christianity" doesn't know this, let alone understand it.

 

Again, whether you like it or not, you are a part of this "christianity". Only your part seems to be made up of arrogant people.

[Jeff H]

"Faith" means...

 

...having the ability to...

 

1) believe IN something.

AND another kind of faith...

 

2) refers to the ability to believe THAT something is true/false.

 

We are to have both ("FAITH FOR faith". Romans 1:17). Our faith should ultimately come from LOVE for God.

Hmm. So not only is this guy rejecting dictionary definitions, but also rejecting biblical definitions. Are you saying that you disagree with what the Bible says about faith being the "evidence of things unseen", or are you trying to TEACH us something?

[mwc]

ONLY a "christian" has the right to call or think of someone as an apostate.

 

mwc,

 

If you like describing yourself as a "christian apostate", then, by all means, continue to do so.

 

When a Marine comes home from war, he does not sign his signature as "EX-MARINE MISTER SO AND SO". He does not introduce himself to people as "EX-MARINE SO AND SO". IF he was still an active Marine and he went AWOL (absent without leave), THEN, if he wanted to, he could describe himself as an "APOSTATE MARINE".

 

It is the same with christianity. You are not an ACTIVE "christian" (meaning that you are no longer IN VIOLATION of christian rules, you simply no longer have ANYTHING to do with christianity at all).

 

(but if you still insist on hanging on to the rules of christianity, your free will gives you the ultimate right to call yourself anything you want).

 

 

I used to describe/call myself as "A christian" (very dehumanizing, I was a "christian" first AND then a person).

 

That's all I'm talking about (that LABELS are dehumanizing). The Lord warns us about the dangers of "self abasement" in Colossians 2:18 because it is dehumanizing.

 

Oh how I wish I didn't have to quote both but I do...

 

Tell how you have explained how ONLY a xian has the RIGHT to CALL or THINK of anyone as an APOSTATE? This was YOUR assertion. Not mine.

 

You have attempted to "explain" something you fail to understand...poorly. Your "example" even demonstrates that a MARINE could be considered an APOSTATE MARINE thereby nullifying your own argument that ONLY a xian had the RIGHT to do this.

 

Yep. By your own admission we now have xian apostates and marine apostates. Your "ONLY a xian has the right" clause seems to have been defeated by you.

 

And you REALLY have to stop with the half-assed attempts at "interpretations." You suck at it. Read up on what the "word" behind what the word(s) mean:

ταπεινοφροσύνη (tapeinophrosunē, 5012), -ης, ἡ, (ταπεινόφρων; opp. to μεγαλοφροσύνη, ὑψηλοφροσύνη, [cf. W. 99 (94)]), the having a humble opinion of one's self; a deep sense of one's (moral) littleness; modesty, humility, lowliness of mind; (Vulg. humililas, Luth. Demuth): Acts xx. 19; Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3; Col. iii. 12; 1 Pet. v. 5; used of an affected and ostentatious humility in Col. ii. 18, 23. (The word occurs neither in the Ο. Τ., nor in prof. auth.— [but in Joseph. b. j. 4, 9, 2 in the sense of pusillanimity; also Epictet. diss. 3, 24, 56 in a bad sense. See Trench, Ν. Τ. Syn. § xlii.; Bp. Lghtft. on Phil. l. c.; Zezschwitz, Profangräcität, u. s. w., pp. 20, 62; W. 26].)*

The "lord" is talking about faux humility in that verse. Not "labels" as you've defined them in your "arguments."

 

Feel free to try again.

 

mwc

[Munk]

okay, i see that you attempted to explain your weird way of redefining words. however, all the capital letters, the liberal use of parentheses, and atrocious amount of apostrophes made wading through your explanation about as pleasant as receiving a root canal.

 

please, either start bolding things and chill on the amount of excess punctuation you seem to love to vomit into your posts or don't post anymore. it's horribly difficult to understand you, because my spastic little mind is far too distracted by your blatant rape of the english language, using it as though it were a 5 dollar whore.

 

also, please practice what you preach when you start proclaiming the necessity of "brief replies".

 

the english language has a structure, and you have deviated so much from it i can't even begin to consider it a form of slang or jargon. just because you can put words together in the order of subject/verb/object does not mean you can construct a coherent sentence. for example, "the dog bloomed into stinky cheese." see, structurally, the sentence stands. however, the content is all nonsense. capeesh? this is what it is like trying to read your sentences. the formula is right, the answer is wrong. am i making any sense?

 

the "voice" you display in your replies reminds me of a 12 year old girl who has just discovered instant messaging. she attempts to make her own cyber-language that no one else seems to understand because it is all in her head. the only difference is that you don't purposely misspell words. that's about the only thing keeping me from losing more IQ points than what i already do when i try and comprehend your posts: you thankfully lack many spelling errors.

 

your attempts at faux-intelligence are not impressing anyone. you desperately need to study the basics of the english language and speech. either try writing in a comprehensible manner by using the commonly understood definitions of words in the english language (it may hurt at first, but work through the pain) or please, just stop talking.

 

i'm only bothering to reply to you because i cannot stand the blatant cluster-fuck of my native language that you, a native speaker too i assume, have wrought upon it.

[Guest Emerwen]

HI,

 

So I've seriously tried to go through and read your posts...seriously i have...but there are a couple of issues I keep stumbling on. That being said, would you please be so kind as to riddle me this:

 

1. Are you or are you not a christian?

 

2. If you are not a christian, what are you (if you don't mind my asking)?

 

3. Why do you insist on incessantly raping the established grammatic rules?

 

I thank you for your time.

 

P.S.

 

If you would be so kind, reply to this without beating the caps lock key. I assure you that I have a firm grasp of the english language and just in case i'll even whip out my dictionary. My poor little ADHD mind just can't seem to focus with all the caps, quotes, parenthesis, and so on that you seem to feel necessary in your normal posting habits.

 

So long and thanks for all the fish,

~Emerwen

[Neon Genesis]

Neon Genesis,

 

You said that...

"and you are not a real Christian".

 

1) I have mentioned the "WAY".

 

2) I have spoken against the "christian" teachings many times.

 

3) my PAST has PASSED. Whatever I am "EX" of simply has nothing to do with me anymore (I am not a "christian" at all). I belong to no group at all (God is not a christian either).

Please, this is the same tired old "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship" cliche that Christians have used in debates a thousand times before. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between you and other Christians expect you apparently don't go to church three times a week. Whoodefreakingdo. And where's your biblical basis for this? How do you explain Acts 11:26 then?

And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Notice that it doesn't say the disciples were first called "The Way." The disciples were first called CHRISTIANS in Antioch. Even the bible calls the disciples of Jesus CHRISTIANS. So, that right there disproves your whole theory about "The Way" and Christianity being a slang term.

 

Jesus did fulfill/COMPLETE/FINISH the law. On the cross, He said "IT IS FINISHED", ...

Wrong, Jesus never said that the law finished at the cross. He said in Matthew 5:18

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Look around you. Do heaven and earth still exist? If they do, then the Old Law still applies to you, too.

 

"Faith" means...

 

...having the ability to...

 

1) believe IN something.

AND another kind of faith...

Quoted from Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN. If you're believing in god using the bible as your evidence, then you're believing with the wrong evidence and you do not have faith. Have you ever actually read the bible yourself in your whole life?

 

1 Corinthians 13:13 is saying that we should have (abide by) all three, but the GREATEST is love.

But if faith was an absolute necessity, then why didn't Paul say faith was the greatest? What happens if there's a little old lady in China who raises her family and has one of the most loving hearts on Earth, but she never heard of Jesus? Does she then deserve to go to hell for something she had no control over even though she had the the greatest of those three? What about a child that never heard of Jesus that dies before his message can be preached to them? Even if the child has love, the greatest of these, does the child then deserve to go to hell because they didn't have faith? And if faith is a necessity in addition to love, where's your so-called love? I haven't seen any love in your posts since you've been here at all. All I've seen is nothing more than your judgmental and closed-minded and condemning attitudes. If faith and love are both needed to be a follower of Jesus, then you certianly are not a follower of Jesus since you clearly have no love for anyone but yourself and your own self-righteous "truth". If your arrogance is what "truth" is, then I don't want any part of it. And you still didn't answer my other question, why don't you pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pick the shard out of our eyes?

 

If you like describing yourself as a "christian apostate", then, by all means, continue to do so.

 

When a Marine comes home from war, he does not sign his signature as "EX-MARINE MISTER SO AND SO". He does not introduce himself to people as "EX-MARINE SO AND SO". IF he was still an active Marine and he went AWOL (absent without leave), THEN, if he wanted to, he could describe himself as an "APOSTATE MARINE".

 

It is the same with christianity. You are not an ACTIVE "christian" (meaning that you are no longer IN VIOLATION of christian rules, you simply no longer have ANYTHING to do with christianity at all).

You're presuming that an ex-marine is the only thing that an ex-marine would identify themselves as at all times. If the person is an ex-marine, then they're still an ex-marine no matter how long it's been since they've left. But just because they are one doesn't mean that's the only thing they identify themselves as. If a person is a father, is father the only identity they label themselves as even if they're also an accountant? If a person is a mother, is a mother the only thing they label themselves as even if they're also a member of a book club? If a person is a child, is child the only thing they identify as even if they're also a student at school? Just because they all use different labels to describe themselves and don't always label themselves the same thing at all times doesn't change the fact that all of them are still mothers, fathers, and children. Likewise, just because a person doesn't always label themselves an apostate at all times and just because they've been an apostate for a certain period doesn't change the fact that they are still an apostate. Do you always automatically go up to people and introduce yourself as "Hi, I am The Way!" or do you introduce your name and various other aspects of your life to them instead? But does that change the fact that you still claim to be The Way just because you might not always introduce yourself like that?

[Munk]

Please, this is the same tired old "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship" cliche that Christians have used in debates a thousand times before. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between you and other Christians expect you apparently don't go to church three times a week. Whoodefreakingdo. And where's your biblical basis for this? How do you explain Acts 11:26 then?

 

it seems we have a One True Christian^tm in our midst!

 

When a Marine comes home from war, he does not sign his signature as "EX-MARINE MISTER SO AND SO". He does not introduce himself to people as "EX-MARINE SO AND SO". IF he was still an active Marine and he went AWOL (absent without leave), THEN, if he wanted to, he could describe himself as an "APOSTATE MARINE".

 

You're presuming that an ex-marine is the only thing that an ex-marine would identify themselves as at all times. If the person is an ex-marine, then they're still an ex-marine no matter how long it's been since they've left. But just because they are one doesn't mean that's the only thing they identify themselves as. If a person is a father, is father the only identity they label themselves as even if they're also an accountant? If a person is a mother, is a mother the only thing they label themselves as even if they're also a member of a book club? If a person is a child, is child the only thing they identify as even if they're also a student at school? Just because they all use different labels to describe themselves and don't always label themselves the same thing at all times doesn't change the fact that all of them are still mothers, fathers, and children. Likewise, just because a person doesn't always label themselves an apostate at all times and just because they've been an apostate for a certain period doesn't change the fact that they are still an apostate. Do you always automatically go up to people and introduce yourself as "Hi, I am The Way!" or do you introduce your name and various other aspects of your life to them instead?

 

well said! he does not seem to understand that the entire basis of language is applying labels to things so we can exchange ideas. words themselves are nothing more than labels for thoughts, actions, states of being, things, etc. it's how we communicate. but the basics of language seem lost on this one. honestly, if he has such an issue with labels, he should just refrain from speaking altogether, since all speaking does is perpetuate the use of labels.

[Auracle]

BTDT says:

 

Salvation IS actually a GIFT,...nothing is expected or required in return. That doesn't mean that a person who is saved will never want to do something that is consistent with God's ways (depending on their mood, or whether they are stressed out).

 

Then just 3 paragraphs later spouts:

 

The "works" that we are REQUIRED to do are the "WORKS OF GOD" (REST in The Lord) and simply TRUST that Jesus did everything that is required/necessary for us to enter the new heaven in the afterlife (because Jesus left the spirit for us so we could learn 'peaceful coexistence').

 

Okay, BTDT....since nothing is expected or required for salvation, then for what purpose is doing the "works of God" required? And if salvation is the indeed the ultimate goal of life, if the "works of God" are not required to attain this salvation, then what reason should any of us care about it? And if it is indeed necessary for salvation, then you have just contradicted yourself that salvation is a "gift."

 

We have already been justified completely in Christ (Romans 3:24) and must live by the perfect law (James 1:25). Jesus abolished the sin laws (Ephesians 2:15) and we should no longer fear (1 John 4:18, Mark 12:30) "Abba Father" (Romans 8:15, we should not know Him as master/taskmaster or be slave/servant, James 2:23).

 

Again with the requirements. Why must we?

 

If you would like to look up these verses, it will show you that "christianity" doesn't know SQUAT about REAL God because they have always been under the strong delusion (the strong delusion is so "strong" because it's thought to be a FUTURE event). Christianity doesn't know "the depths of God" (1 Corin. 2:10) because they don't desire a "more excellent" devotion (1 Corin. 2:10) based on the "greatest of these" (1 Corin. 13:13). The bible is not a 'roadmap to God', it's only the introductory doctrine of Jesus (Hebrews 6:1).

 

Well, bully for you that you have all the answers. I suppose Jesus provided you with the complete, unabridged version of his doctrine, did he?

[mwc]

Well, bully for you that you have all the answers. I suppose Jesus provided you with the complete, unabridged version of his doctrine, did he?

Check up your ass...that appears to be where jesus leaves people like BTDT their copies.

 

mwc

[Auracle]

Well, bully for you that you have all the answers. I suppose Jesus provided you with the complete, unabridged version of his doctrine, did he?

Check up your ass...that appears to be where jesus leaves people like BTDT their copies.

 

mwc

 

Huh. I checked up my ass and all I found was shit. Or is that the same difference?

[mwc]

Huh. I checked up my ass and all I found was shit. Or is that the same difference?

Looking at BTDT's posts...same difference.

 

mwc

[Jedah]

Everything "been there done that" has said in a nutshell:

 

http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/...circular-logic/

[R. S. Martin]

This thread really took off while I wasn't looking.

 

From the video:

 

You see that did there? All those atheists and agnostics out there? They asked circular questions! They blame US for using circular logic. But they--THEY--ask circular questions! All you atheists and agnostics out there--you need to stop asking these crazy circular questions. You need to ask in questions in a straight line--straight to Jesus!

 

Might not be word for word accurate but that's what I could produce from memory after hearing it a few times. So funny. Circular questions.

[been there done that]

You are right, I did say that...

"The "works" that we are REQUIRED to do are the "WORKS OF GOD"

 

When you have a hard day and are stressed out, someone who is close to you might say that you MUST rest and are REQUIRED to rest. Most people would have no objections to doing that (RESTING).

 

God sent His son to do certain "works" so that our flesh would be purified AND also left His spirit so that our conscience would also be purified if we learn from His spirit (Hebrews 9:14). Those are the "works of God" (meaning that JESUS did ALL the the "works" that are necessary, OUR PART is to simply trust and be confident that those works were and still are sufficient). In other words, REST IN THE LORD AND BE BORED. You might wish to overcome this boredom with a hobby, career, living a happy life, etc. (any objections??).

 

The traditional teachings of institutional 'club' christianity/religion are meant to appeal to (be attractive to) human nature's desire to BECOME WORTHY (puffed up VAIN ego, vanity). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to be "worthy of God", that is why God did all of the "works" FOR US (the word "FOR" refers to the fact that He recognized our INABILITY to do those "works").

 

I never said anything about circular logic (true, humanity/society is in the habit of using circular logic and rationalizing many false understandings...subjective/biased truth). As we all grow up, we are taught to do this and learn 'false reasoning'. Obviously, you feel that "circular logic"/false reasoning is occuring right now and is, in fact, the mainstay of "christianity"...YES, it always has been. HOWEVER, I made NO ACCUSATIONS of this before and should not be accused of this (if you believe/think "circular logic" is occuring (do you need me to "agree"?), you'll never "KNOW" anything to be true unless you trust your instincts.

 

There are two kinds of faith (the ability to "believe" something to be valid/invalid,...AND "trust" in the 'merits' of what is valid).

 

1) believing THAT something is true/false.

 

2) TRUSTING IN it's merit/qualities.

 

Truly knowing God is a "FAITH FOR faith" (Romans 1:17), not A "faith" (even though it has always been taught as a "faith").

 

First, a person must believe THAT God exists.

 

THEN, the person must also believe/trust that God is good.

 

Hebrews 11:6

"whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists AND that he rewards those who seek him".

 

If you think that what I say is "same difference", try and find a christian that UNDERSTANDS "faith for faith", let alone believes it (or even knows of that verse).

 

Nothing is expected "IN RETURN" for salvation (it is LIKELY that a person will become a peaceful and just person as a RESULT and have a Godly spirit...in other words,...'be holy').

[florduh]

Sometimes I feel GUILTY for enjoying THIS thread so much. I really shouldn't TAKE pleasure in MOCKING the afflicted.

 

But I just can't HELP it because it's SO friggin' funny.

 

Also, I SHALL refrain from ASKING circular questions.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm officially convinced that Been There is just a spammer who spams whatever pops into head, whether it has anything to do with the thread or not. I have to wonder how Been There can even understand his own beliefs since clearly no one else can.

[Skankboy]

I've always loved how christians throw around "absolute truth" without ever providing an example. One single thing that is consitent through recorded history in all human societies.

 

It...doesn't...exist...

[Knupfer]

Here. A person seems to be asking genuine questions about Christianity. Maybe it's just me being naive. The Christian talks all around the matter and never answers his basic questions on how to be saved. I can't believe it! Where I come from this would have been seen as the equivalent of murder.

 

Of course, I'm Mennonite and apparently he's Calvinist. He believes only those who are called can be saved. But still.....who does he think he is to deny answers to a person who asks???

 

Sorry but every time we do, you swear at us and tell us to leave you alone! So sorry friend, but you do have to take some responsibility for your actions to even be considered an adult.

[Neon Genesis]

Since when has R.S. Martin sweared once in this thread?

[R. S. Martin]

Since when has R.S. Martin sweared once in this thread?

 

And the Christian has no answer.