Trying to be a Christian

[Neb]

I’ve tried for a while to be a Christian. But it seems that, to be saved, I have to have faith and I haven’t managed that. There are a number of things that make it hard for me to believe – things about the Christian story that don’t make sense or that seem wrong.

I have made a list of my sticking points in http://www.et.m1maths.com/Problems.pdf . If any Christian would be kind enough to have a look at any of these and tell me where I’m going wrong, I would be very grateful. Even a response to one problem would be welcome. Please quote the problem number so I know which one you are addressing.

Many thanks, Neb.

[tam]

Peace again to you!

[Replying to Neb in post #1]

It would have been easy for God to put some insight into the bible that mankind could not have had until after we are sure that the bible was finalised, e.g. some modern physics or astronomy. Instead, it is exactly what one would expect if it were written by people with the very limited understanding of nature that prevailed at the time of writing. It is not consistent with modern knowledge of nature: much of it is clearly wrong in terms of the picture of nature painted by modern science.[It might be said, on the other hand,that God made the world in 6 daysin 4004 BCE, but that he made it look like it was billions of years old so that he could fool people into not believing and send them to hell. But it isn’t clear why a god who loves us would want to do that.]

Just a quick note on #9 here:

1 - You cannot teach people something they are incapable of understanding. So it makes sense (to me) that people would be taught to grasp concepts using words and examples from their time. At the same time, if someone in the bible received a vision (as many did), they might need to write that vision, using words at their disposal. If someone was shown a vision of the future and it included a fighter jet (for example), they're not going to use the word 'fighter jet' or 'plane' or 'helicopter', because those things had not been invented yet. There were no words for them. Though they might use chariot or vessel. If someone saw something like the internet - it is not going to be described as the internet. How would someone 2 thousand (or more) years ago describe seeing the internet?

2 - What about all the people who came before this particular modern time? Genetics or DNA is not going to do the people from a thousand years ago any good, because that would have meant nothing to them. AND... what if there is stuff in the bible that actually is 'modern' (just not OUR modern time)? Things that people from any time can get a sense of, but that has not yet been proven. Such as something about the spirit; about the spiritual realm; the world of the dead; seraphim (what we often just call angels), etc? There may well be advanced things discussed in the bible (and I am not calling that book the Word of God, because it is Christ who is the Word of God). Just to be proven at a future 'modern' time period.


3 - The bible does contain the verse that the earth is suspended on nothing. Job 26:7 That's pretty advanced for a people (thousands of years ago) who did not have the technological tools to discover or confirm this fact. That sounds like it is just the kind of evidence that you are asking about.



Just some things to consider!


Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you,

Test the message, the expression (inspired or otherwise). If it is in conflict with Christ (something He has said/done), then you can know it is not from Him.

I believe I gave an example in my first response to you on this matter.

If someone were to say that God or His Son wants you to hate or curse an enemy, then you can hold that up to Christ (and to love) and know that it is not true, and therefore, is not from Christ. Christ said to love one's enemies, to bless those who curse you, to pray for those who mistreat you.

I agree that we should test what we are told if we reasonably can, but reading the Bible isn't really a test because there is no objective and consistent way to determine truth by reading it. People can find justification in it for almost any position they hold, and they often do find such justification in it.

I never said test against the bible; I said test against Christ. But if someone were seeking justification for their claim (as in my example above) that Christ wanted us to hate or curse an enemy, then what is written (from what Christ said) is indeed enough to counter that claim. One can also test that against love (love does not curse). Nor did Christ curse His enemies when they falsely accused Him, had Him executed, tortured, beat, spit upon Him. Instead He did what He teaches us to do: forgive those who wrong you (He asked His Father to forgive them).

That is the example that a disciple of Christ and/or Christian should follow.

...I shared with you what I have received from my Lord on how to test the claims (and inspired expressions) that others make - against Him (the Light and the Truth) and against love. All I said is that a person who wishes to be a disciple of Christ should be listening to, following and obeying Christ.

Fine. I will try that shortly.

But you didn't. You made up your own test, one that had nothing to do with what I shared, all the while avoiding the question put to you.

My own answer is that we might have no idea whom Christ spoke to if they contradict each other, and many such persons do contradict each other. So obviously there are at least some cases in which those who say they listen to Christ--very possibly sincerely believe they listen to Christ--are simply wrong. We then have proof that listening to Christ is by no means a reliable means to arrive at the truth.

No, that would be proof to the fact that not everyone listens to Christ (and some might have heard, but then added their own spin, or taken away from what they heard, instead of sharing 'just so').

Sure, not everybody listens to Christ, but there's no reliable way to determine who does and who doesn't except perhaps my way of discerning if they say or do something that can only come from Christ.

And that (the bold and underlined) is the only thing proven by the problem of 'contradiction'.

The problem is not people listening to Christ. The problem is people NOT listening to Christ.

Either way, you must admit now that Christ does indeed speak and that a person can hear Him, yes?

I suppose it's possible that Christ can and does speak to people.

Yes (well, more than possible from your pov, if indeed you were speaking truthfully when you said that Christ answered your question.)

...one must beware the erring pen of the scribes (Jeremiah 8:8). In this case, the scribes have translated three words as one word, but they do not all have the same meaning. So in order to show someone that error, well, that is what those links are there for.

So reading the Bible isn't enough; we need experts to tell us what we just got done reading.

Or you could test it yourself, check for yourself, ask Christ for the truth of the matter.

Well, that might have to do with the fact that other people are yakking about Christ all the time, but Christ isn't around to say much.

But you just claimed that you asked Him a question and He answered you. Was that untrue?

Please allow me to defer for a while answering your question and ask you to answer it for us.

No.

You can defer or refuse if you want. I'm pretty sure the answer is clear to anyone reading. But since you did not want me to answer your questions with questions, I think it only fair for you to answer the question I asked you, instead of deferring that question to me.

You just posted that we should test, so I'd like to test your ability to discern truth by your listening to what Christ has to say about the matter. What does Christ say as you listen to him? Please post what truth you receive from him so I can see if you're right.

That is your test, along the same lines of those who asked for a sign (Matt 16). It has nothing to do with me or anything that I shared.

No offense (truly), but who are you to say how God works? How do you know God doesn't work that way?

I see that I'm not allowed the privilege to say I listen to God.

Is that your answer then? That God told you He does not work that way? Because that would be completely contradictory, lol.

But to answer your question, I don't really listen to God or at least not in the normal sense of the word. I try to put my trust in a logical God. I simply see no good reason to conclude that God goes about picking and choosing whom he wants to grant privileges to.

- if a person is willing to serve Him and do as He says

- if a person loves His Son and is therefore loved by Him (God)

- if a person has faith that He does indeed speak (albeit through His Son/Word/Holy One), and is willing to listen to Him and share 'just so', and give credit to Him (or His Son) for that truth.


I can think of many reasons why God (or His Son) would choose someone to grant a privilege to, including that the person has faith in Him (and His Son).

As for speaking to people though, it is not a matter of Christ (or God) speaking to some and not speaking to others. It is a matter of some listening (to HIM) and others NOT listening (to Him).

I asked, "How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is SEEKING TO know Him?"

I don't think I would be able to help them that way.

Okay, well, please allow me to emphasize that Neb mentioned trying to be Christian, and asking for Christians to respond to (one or more of) the problems in his link.

If you do not know Christ, and you do not think it is possible to know Christ, how can you help someone who is seeking Him?

I'd help them by telling them to give up on the nonsense and go do something to make the world a better place.

I'm not sure how that would be helping Neb with what he asked for help with.

And for the record, a person can seek Christ and seek to help (others in the world) at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive events, and in fact, my Lord has sent me to help others in need.

Let me conclude with an outline of where you're going wrong:

Your outline is a repetition of things that have been responded to already, so I will leave the previous posts to stand as a response to them.



Peace again to you.

[William]

Peace to you,

Test the message, the expression (inspired or otherwise). If it is in conflict with Christ (something He has said/done), then you can know it is not from Him.

I believe I gave an example in my first response to you on this matter.

If someone were to say that God or His Son wants you to hate or curse an enemy, then you can hold that up to Christ (and to love) and know that it is not true, and therefore, is not from Christ. Christ said to love one's enemies, to bless those who curse you, to pray for those who mistreat you.

I agree that we should test what we are told if we reasonably can, but reading the Bible isn't really a test because there is no objective and consistent way to determine truth by reading it. People can find justification in it for almost any position they hold, and they often do find such justification in it.

I never said test against the bible; I said test against Christ. But if someone were seeking justification for their claim (as in my example above) that Christ wanted us to hate or curse an enemy, then what is written (from what Christ said) is indeed enough to counter that claim. One can also test that against love (love does not curse). Nor did Christ curse His enemies when they falsely accused Him, had Him executed, tortured, beat, spit upon Him. Instead He did what He teaches us to do: forgive those who wrong you (He asked His Father to forgive them).

That is the example that a disciple of Christ and/or Christian should follow.

Then there is the problem where Jesus is reported to have commanded followers to hate their parents and everyone else if those things were to be understood as getting in the way of ones relationship with Christ Consceiousness.

This is an inherent problem with conflating the word of man with the word of The Creator one is required to be lead of Spirit in relation to the written word from our pens... [laptops etc...]

[Paul of Tarsus]

I said test against Christ. But if someone were seeking justification for their claim (as in my example above) that Christ wanted us to hate or curse an enemy, then what is written (from what Christ said) is indeed enough to counter that claim. One can also test that against love (love does not curse).

Sorry, but although what you're saying here might sound nice to some people, for purposes of sensibly determining truth, it's basically useless. It's hopelessly vague and subjective. There's no objective way to distinguish truth from error. It's this kind of talk that makes a mockery of God portraying him as a ghost you can conjure up for your own purposes. God doesn't work that way. He doesn't play games with us rewarding a privileged few with his revelations while leaving the rest of us trying to figure out who is really listening to him. Personally, I don't think he talks to anybody because nobody as far as I know has anything to show for it.

Please allow me to defer for a while answering your question and ask you to answer it for us.

No.

Then you've just demonstrated that your "test against Christ" is useless for determining objective truth.

So I've proven my point, and I declare victory in this debate with you. If you have any questions, then please ask.

And one more thing; no, I never received any answers from Christ. So if listening to Christ fails, you can always listen to me!

[tam]

Peace to you William,

Peace to you,

Test the message, the expression (inspired or otherwise). If it is in conflict with Christ (something He has said/done), then you can know it is not from Him.

I believe I gave an example in my first response to you on this matter.

If someone were to say that God or His Son wants you to hate or curse an enemy, then you can hold that up to Christ (and to love) and know that it is not true, and therefore, is not from Christ. Christ said to love one's enemies, to bless those who curse you, to pray for those who mistreat you.

I agree that we should test what we are told if we reasonably can, but reading the Bible isn't really a test because there is no objective and consistent way to determine truth by reading it. People can find justification in it for almost any position they hold, and they often do find such justification in it.

I never said test against the bible; I said test against Christ. But if someone were seeking justification for their claim (as in my example above) that Christ wanted us to hate or curse an enemy, then what is written (from what Christ said) is indeed enough to counter that claim. One can also test that against love (love does not curse). Nor did Christ curse His enemies when they falsely accused Him, had Him executed, tortured, beat, spit upon Him. Instead He did what He teaches us to do: forgive those who wrong you (He asked His Father to forgive them).

That is the example that a disciple of Christ and/or Christian should follow.

Then there is the problem where Jesus is reported to have commanded followers to hate their parents and everyone else if those things were to be understood as getting in the way of ones relationship with Christ...

It makes sense to me. How can you serve Christ and His Father and their will and their Kingdom if you do not put them first? (Matthew 6:24)

As for contradiction (in case someone is wondering if these words contradict His words to love), I hear what you're saying (perhaps), but in this case, one can get a sense of what Christ meant from other things (from Him) that are written. Though this is certainly a place one could (always should) ask Christ for clarification. Sometimes a little bit of reasoning can help (point 15 from Neb's list). Because Christ (the Truth) does not contradict Himself. Truth cannot contradict truth.

So the verse in question:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 (compare John 12:25)

The word 'hate' itself (in its original language) can carry the connotation of loving less. Which would be in keeping with Matthew 10:37:

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So that hate can mean love less.

But we also have an understanding of what we are to be hating from "John":

Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25


The 'in this world' part is important, as it refers to one's own desires and will (perhaps also one's own possessions and position and ambitions in this world), instead of putting Christ and God and their will and their Kingdom first. It is no different than saying one must deny oneself, pick up one's own cross, in order to follow Christ.

So it is about putting Him (and His Father) and their will first, loving Him and His Father MOST.

That does not mean that you do not love yourself (how can you love your neighbor as yourself unless you first love yourself?); and that does not mean that you do not love others (how can you love your neighbor and even your enemies, if you do not love others?) But love Christ and God MOST and FIRST. If indeed you wish to be their disciple, because serving them comes with a cross (in this world).

We also know that Christ saw to His own mother's care before He died (that He gave His life even for those who made themselves His enemies). Both of these things are things one does out of love. And of course Christ instructed His apostles to love one another as He loves them; to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love God with our whole heart and soul and mind, and to love even our enemies (if indeed we wish to be children of our Father in heaven). In addition to His words, this is also the example that He left us. So it makes much more sense (at least to me) to explore this one verse that "appears" to be out of place, rather than assume Christ didn't mean all the other words or all the other deeds that showed love.

You might not have been saying anything different, William. I am just clarifying.


Peace again to you!

[brunumb]

Let me conclude with an outline of where you're going wrong:

1. "Listen to and obey Christ" is a hopelessly vague and subjective bit of advice.
2. Those who claim to do so often contradict each other, and we cannot reliably tell who's right and who's wrong.
3. Those who claim to follow and obey Christ are probably deluded.
4. There is no conclusive evidence for anybody listening to Christ because they have nothing to show for it.

That bears repeating. There is no point engaging in arguments with people making claims that basically involve having conversations inside their own heads. When those claims cannot be supported or demonstrated as being true there is no room for discussion.

[William]

Peace to you William,

Peace to you,

Test the message, the expression (inspired or otherwise). If it is in conflict with Christ (something He has said/done), then you can know it is not from Him.

I believe I gave an example in my first response to you on this matter.

If someone were to say that God or His Son wants you to hate or curse an enemy, then you can hold that up to Christ (and to love) and know that it is not true, and therefore, is not from Christ. Christ said to love one's enemies, to bless those who curse you, to pray for those who mistreat you.

I agree that we should test what we are told if we reasonably can, but reading the Bible isn't really a test because there is no objective and consistent way to determine truth by reading it. People can find justification in it for almost any position they hold, and they often do find such justification in it.

I never said test against the bible; I said test against Christ. But if someone were seeking justification for their claim (as in my example above) that Christ wanted us to hate or curse an enemy, then what is written (from what Christ said) is indeed enough to counter that claim. One can also test that against love (love does not curse). Nor did Christ curse His enemies when they falsely accused Him, had Him executed, tortured, beat, spit upon Him. Instead He did what He teaches us to do: forgive those who wrong you (He asked His Father to forgive them).

That is the example that a disciple of Christ and/or Christian should follow.

Then there is the problem where Jesus is reported to have commanded followers to hate their parents and everyone else if those things were to be understood as getting in the way of ones relationship with Christ...

It makes sense to me. How can you serve Christ and His Father and their will and their Kingdom if you do not put them first? (Matthew 6:24)

As for contradiction (in case someone is wondering if these words contradict His words to love), I hear what you're saying (perhaps), but in this case, one can get a sense of what Christ meant from other things (from Him) that are written. Though this is certainly a place one could (always should) ask Christ for clarification. Sometimes a little bit of reasoning can help (point 15 from Neb's list). Because Christ (the Truth) does not contradict Himself. Truth cannot contradict truth.

So the verse in question:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 (compare John 12:25)

The word 'hate' itself (in its original language) can carry the connotation of loving less. Which would be in keeping with Matthew 10:37:

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So that hate can mean love less.

But we also have an understanding of what we are to be hating from "John":

Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25


The 'in this world' part is important, as it refers to one's own desires and will (perhaps also one's own possessions and position and ambitions in this world), instead of putting Christ and God and their will and their Kingdom first. It is no different than saying one must deny oneself, pick up one's own cross, in order to follow Christ.

So it is about putting Him (and His Father) and their will first, loving Him and His Father MOST.

That does not mean that you do not love yourself (how can you love your neighbor as yourself unless you first love yourself?); and that does not mean that you do not love others (how can you love your neighbor and even your enemies, if you do not love others?) But love Christ and God MOST and FIRST. If indeed you wish to be their disciple, because serving them comes with a cross (in this world).

We also know that Christ saw to His own mother's care before He died (that He gave His life even for those who made themselves His enemies). Both of these things are things one does out of love. And of course Christ instructed His apostles to love one another as He loves them; to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love God with our whole heart and soul and mind, and to love even our enemies (if indeed we wish to be children of our Father in heaven). In addition to His words, this is also the example that He left us. So it makes much more sense (at least to me) to explore this one verse that "appears" to be out of place, rather than assume Christ didn't mean all the other words or all the other deeds that showed love.

You might not have been saying anything different, William. I am just clarifying.


Peace again to you!

Thanks for taking the opportunity to clarify Tammy.

There seems to be a stubborn resistance to a simple enough request borne from an opposition to more suitable changes. This of course was understood by CC from the go get but this is also why things have been set up in the next phase the way they are.

In think the idea of eternal life is the carrot on the stick for those who don't believe they are aspects of CC and once that gate is passed through, one realises one was always bound to live forever...one also realises that such awareness changes significantly how one will live eternity with said awarenss.

The dropping away of old notions is part of the Born Again process...being a Disciple brings with it new notions...unwritten ones, for the most part...therein In the hearing of CC is clear to those with the "ears" to hear.
The uninitiated rely more on the images the eye sees...images presented through written word as well as pictures...

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to Neb in post #1]

Point 10:

In Acts and the gospels, it seems that a fundamental requirement of becoming a Christian is to sell all one’s possessions and give the proceeds to the poor and/or the church(Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22). In fact Ananias and Saphira were struck down dead by God for selling property and only giving some of the proceeds to the church(Acts 5:4). But later, in Paul’s letters, he talks about churches meeting in people’s houses. It could be that they were justrenting those houses. However, Christians nowadays almost universally do not sell their possessions and give the money away.Are they really Christians?

So (point by point this time):

In Acts and the gospels, it seems that a fundamental requirement of becoming a Christian is to sell all one’s possessions and give the proceeds to the poor and/or the church(Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22).

No that is not a requirement to becoming Christian. Though it was a requirement for at least one person (the rich young man in those verses you link to) who asked to know what he lacked; and others might have needed that lesson in order to learn to put their faith in God (and in His Son) instead of in money/possessions.


We can know that selling all your possessions and giving to the poor was not a requirement to be a disciple of Christ (nor to be Christian), because Mary, Martha, and Lazarus had a house and took Christ into their home, and all three siblings were His disciples. (although giving to the poor; those in need; is something Christ instructed us to do)

The rich young man in your examples asked for Christ to tell him what he still lacked, and so Christ did what the rich young man requested. By telling him to give up his possessions, the rich young man was shown what he lacked in his very inability to do as Christ asked. It showed the young man where his heart was (with his treasure on earth) and/or it showed where he lacked in faith.

It could be something completely different for someone else. All depends upon what is in that person, where their hearts might be.

In fact Ananias and Saphira were struck down dead by God for selling property and only giving some of the proceeds to the church(Acts 5:4).

This is not correct. Ananias and Saphira were not struck down by God (not even according to the text which makes no mention of such a thing). The problem was not that they only gave some proceeds to the church. The problem is that they lied, tried to deceive the brothers and sisters (for whatever reason), by claiming to have sold their properties and given ALL the proceeds to the apostles.

“Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.

But later, in Paul’s letters, he talks about churches meeting in people’s houses.

Exactly. It was not a requirement to sell ALL one's possessions in order to be a disciple of Christ (though for some people it may have been necesssary, because that is either what they lacked, or what they needed to work on).

It could be that they were just renting those houses.

It could be, but there is still the example of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

However, Christians nowadays almost universally do not sell their possessions and give the money away.Are they really Christians?

I would not attempt to discern their status based upon their possessions (or lack thereof). That would be between them and Christ. Not them and me and Christ.



Hope that helps,

Peace again to you!

[Paul of Tarsus]

Then there is the problem where Jesus is reported to have commanded followers to hate their parents and everyone else if those things were to be understood as getting in the way of ones relationship with Christ Consceiousness.

This is an inherent problem with conflating the word of man with the word of The Creator one is required to be lead of Spirit in relation to the written word from our pens... [laptops etc...]

Dangerous religious leaders preach love to their followers and hatred to their enemies. I just watched some of the 1976 movie Helter Skelter which documents the Manson murders and the following investigation by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. In that film Susan Atkins, one of the murderers along with other members of the Manson family testified that Manson preached love to them. They said he was Jesus Christ. None of us need that kind of love.

Anyway, when I read that kind of thing, I can understand why many people are atheists. I don't believe in a God who picks "special" people to carry out his will or to reveal his secrets to. If he wants to communicate to any of us, then he will do so directly and not let everybody else just take the supposed prophet's word for it.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #50]

If he wants to communicate to any of us, then he will do so directly and not let everybody else just take the supposed prophet's word for it.

Now how is that any different than what I said? Other than that I said God speaks to us through His Son?