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.
Trying to be a Christian
Moderator: Moderators
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #31The ones it's going to be very, very difficult to answer are the ones that focus on the human being's lack of knowledge, such as point 15. Expecting us to ignore our own selves and choose faith is fine in and of itself, but then, if we're admitting we don't know, well then, who does? Christianity is one religion. Many religions demand faith. You can't have faith in them all, so even if they are 100% correct, and we're all very stupid, too stupid to trust ourselves so that faith is the best option, we have ONE chance to win, and that's to trust the right thing.
We're not choosing rationally. We're not selecting based on evidence. We're dumb stupid beasts who just have to go on faith because we're so stupid and simple we could never understand.
So if multiple beings (let's say, Lucifer and God) happened to both tell us to have faith in them, we just have to pick the right one by luck.
We're not choosing rationally. We're not selecting based on evidence. We're dumb stupid beasts who just have to go on faith because we're so stupid and simple we could never understand.
So if multiple beings (let's say, Lucifer and God) happened to both tell us to have faith in them, we just have to pick the right one by luck.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #32More assertions--mere assertions. I'm sorry, but what you said here doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Is your argument for atheism the assertion that religion is wrong and bad?Miles wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:54 pmIn that logic is the bedrock of reason, "reasonable faith" is a gross misnomer because virtually no faith (religious trust) is logically reasonable. Emotionally reasonable? Yes. Logically reasonable? No. And this is why the trust behind faith is without merit---other than to sooth the unquestioning, anxious mind of the believer of course.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:39 pmYou honestly don't get this? Having evidence for a proposition isn't enough. You need to use your brain, too. You need to recognize that the evidence supports the truth of the proposition. That's where faith comes into play. Reasonable faith is the acceptance of the truth of a proposition if the reasoning or evidence is convincing.
Your response here doesn't have much relevance to what I said, but I've yet to see how your evidence is any better than what religion might offer if you have any evidence at all.When the evidence under-girding faith is so biased, unsubstantiated, and poorly thought out, as it almost always is, it becomes moot, which is why the trust it engenders is appalling.But maybe you're different. Maybe you can have evidence without thinking about whether or not it supports the proposition. The evidence is just lying around somewhere while you're not even aware of it! As long as it's somewhere, right?
I'm not seeing any reasoning or evidence from you here. What do you mean by your evidence being "in the eating"? Did your dog eat it? Maybe it's the "evidence of that which is unseen."I gave you my reasoning. The evidence for it is in the eating.You just did what you accuse the religious of doing. You've made assertions without one bit of reasoning or a shred of evidence to support those assertions. I thought you didn't need blind faith.
Let's do that. Earlier you asserted:Simply take any assertion of faith and closely look at its basis. Is it well founded in fact and logic?
There's really no applicable logic to what you're asserting here, so we need not expect or look for it. Now, regarding fact, I agree that it's common for claims to be unsupported by evidence. Your claims are good examples of such. But I think religious believers can make some claims that are supported by evidence not the least of which is eye-witness testimony and archaeological evidence.Believers may point to some evidence, but it's seldom ever reasoned or logical.
No, disagreements among atheists go far beyond the meaning of atheism. For instance, some atheists deny the possibility of God while others aren't so sure. Also, some atheists believe Jesus existed, and others insist he didn't exist. If you want to critique religious faith because it is not consistent, then to be fair you should criticize atheism for the same reason.To Pin down to a single definition, yes; however, this is about the definition of "atheism," and only the definition, not any interpretation of evidence upon which to construct a religion.As if atheists don't disagree! It appears that atheism is way too subjective to pin down.
I did get you there. You deny the very logic you use against religion by making use of it when it suits your purposes.Boy! Ya got me there!You should know. You just got done posting much of your own "frantic trust dolled up in atheistic vernacular."
In conclusion, I'd recommend that any Christian apologist have doubters read your posts. Those doubters might think twice about losing their religious faith realizing that they might just be trading it for secular faith.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #33As if your responses do. However, I regret my exposé of faith is so troubling that it makes you strike out, I certainly didn't mean it to. But I realize that truth can sometimes be difficult take; although, perhaps in the future this difficulty will resolve itself into acceptance. It's something all truths deserves.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:32 pmMore assertions--mere assertions. I'm sorry, but what you said here doesn't amount to a hill of beans.Miles wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:54 pmIn that logic is the bedrock of reason, "reasonable faith" is a gross misnomer because virtually no faith (religious trust) is logically reasonable. Emotionally reasonable? Yes. Logically reasonable? No. And this is why the trust behind faith is without merit---other than to sooth the unquestioning, anxious mind of the believer of course.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:39 pmYou honestly don't get this? Having evidence for a proposition isn't enough. You need to use your brain, too. You need to recognize that the evidence supports the truth of the proposition. That's where faith comes into play. Reasonable faith is the acceptance of the truth of a proposition if the reasoning or evidence is convincing.
Good grief! Here, let me help you out.Is your argument for atheism the assertion that religion is wrong and bad?
Q. What is atheism?
A.
" a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
And that's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm sure you don't, even after having told you:Your response here doesn't have much relevance to what I said, but I've yet to see how your evidence is any better than what religion might offer if you have any evidence at all.When the evidence under-girding faith is so biased, unsubstantiated, and poorly thought out, as it almost always is, it becomes moot, which is why the trust it engenders is appalling.But maybe you're different. Maybe you can have evidence without thinking about whether or not it supports the proposition. The evidence is just lying around somewhere while you're not even aware of it! As long as it's somewhere, right?
"unlike common trust, which develops out of a reasonable assessment of the reverent factors, i.e. good evidence, faith (religious trust) develops out of whatever happens to work, reasonable or not." (post 20)
Okay, this petty grousing has grown tiresome. Maybe you don't have anything better to do, but I do. So, I leave you to your best shot at defending the character of faith.I'm not seeing any reasoning or evidence from you here. What do you mean by your evidence being "in the eating"? Did your dog eat it? Maybe it's the "evidence of that which is unseen."I gave you my reasoning. The evidence for it is in the eating.You just did what you accuse the religious of doing. You've made assertions without one bit of reasoning or a shred of evidence to support those assertions. I thought you didn't need blind faith.
Have at it, and have a good day.
.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20496
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #34Moderator CommentPaul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:05 pmHmmm. I wonder which camp you fall into.Some people receive eternal life, and some do not.
Please avoid making the debate personal.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #35My point is that claiming to "follow Christ" can be based in a personal bias and delusion rather than fact. Nobody as far as I know has the last word on what it means to listen to Christ. But more than anything else, the contradictory nature of these kinds of claims demonstrates that some of those claims are in fact based in personal bias and very possibly deceit. So the wise person is slow to believe these claims and looks for something that only Christ might reveal to a person. If the supposed revelation is something that anybody can make up, then it probably is made up.tam wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:53 pm Peace to you,
And what is your point?Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:05 pmIndividual Christians no doubt have their own ideas about following, obeying, and listening to Christ. I can recognize that people have differences regarding everything, and that includes their faith in Christ. So yes, they follow and obey and listen to Christ or think they do, but there are often differences in what they conclude about what Christ expects of them.
You can do anything you think is right, but don't expect me to believe you if you don't have convincing evidence for what you say.Because I personally do not see why a Christian (and perhaps you are not claiming to be Christian, I do not know) would object to a person following, listening to, obeying Christ.
You're not answering my question. I would think that if a person is listening to Christ, then Christ would instruct that person to answer questions fully and honestly. Do you not claim to follow and obey Christ? If so, then why should I believe you over another person who makes a similar claim yet contradicts you?See, I don't recall saying anything about listening to people who claim to 'speak for Christ'. I said only that if one wishes to be His disciple, then HE is the One to follow and obey.Whom did Christ speak to if two people claiming to speak for him contradict each other?
I tested your claim that eternal punishment in hell is not in the Bible, and I found it to be wrong.Neither, you should believe Christ. Hence, test the inspired expression, as stated in my previous post.If the pope disagrees with you on what Christ has said, for example, then why should I believe you rather than him?
I'm just going by what people say. That's why I see you as a follower of Christ; you've told me you are a follower of Christ. I have no more evidence than that for anybody's claim to follow Christ.Yes, obviously contradictory claims cannot all be true. But why are you assuming that everyone who makes a claim about Christ are actually His followers?These conflicts between Christ's followers matter because contradictory claims about Christ cannot all be true.
That quotation appears in Matthew 7:22-24, but I'm not sure if Christ really said that. What we are being told is that some people may be completely convinced that they are followers of Christ and truly listen to him, yet they will be "led down the road to destruction." Note that there are no exceptions here. Anybody might be disappointed on judgment day realizing that their hopes for eternal life will be dashed. It's very tricky business, is it not? I don't believe God would play a cruel game like that, but many people can obviously be deluded into thinking that they are a genuine follower of Christ while seeing all those who disagree with them as phonies.Didn't He say that many would call Hm "Lord", but He would say to them that He never knew them?
I suppose we need to inspect the fruit which is to say we need to scrutinize what people say about Christ checking it for substance. If it's all talk, then it doesn't amount to much because anybody can claim to be listening to Christ. Like I have already explained, if a person really listens to Christ, then that person should be able to demonstrate something that only Christ can grant. Otherwise, it's just something that anybody can say or make up.If we want to know the truth, then we need to listen to the One who IS the Truth and who speaks the truth. How exactly do you expect to sift the wheat from the chaff without knowing what makes something wheat?
I don't see any of that as a test because I don't see how anything can be judged as right or wrong that way.I mean ask Him, and if one does not have ears to hear (yet), then ask for them.How exactly are we to "test against Christ"? I assume you mean to read the Bible.
If one is going to look at the bible, then His words in that book are going to come before any other words in that book. Because HE is the Truth, and the One to whom God has said to listen.
But how are we to know Christ without the Bible? Christ simply isn't around to ask what he's all about.But Christ does reflect what God wants. Christ is the Word and Image of God, the One who reveals God to us. If we know Christ, then we know His Father as well. Not because they are the same person, but because Christ is the perfect representation of His Father.As I see it, God never authored the Bible; men wrote the Bible, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what God wants.
I don't know what Christ teaches, but I disagree with much of what the Bible has him say. What he is quoted as saying in the Bible looks to me like the word of a man and not the word of God.Perhaps you took issue with that because you teach something other than what Christ teaches?
I think God gave us brains to figure out love on our own, and many people love just fine without being told to love.God does indeed tell us about love.
I'm not sure what you're claiming, but I just want my readers to understand that there's more to God than a lot of talk about obeying Christ and listening to him.Did someone claim otherwise?Well, I did mention such prophets. God no doubt doesn't want us to believe just anybody who claims to speak to and for Christ.
As I understand the term "prophet," she or he is a person claiming to speak to or listen to God or Christ and who tells others what God/Christ has told them.And where did I claim to be a prophet?
A lot of religious people say that. Since religion has earned a bad reputation, it may be best to distance oneself from it.I am not part of religion.
I've read the Bible, and it obviously tells us about eternal torment suffered by sinners in a lake of fire. If we disagree, then maybe we are confused by the men who wrote the Bible.I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with, but if you click on the links, you will find evidence supporting the claim that the 'doctrine of eternal hellfire' is not present in the bible. It is indeed something that religion invented (adding to or taking away from the truth). But it is not actually in the bible.
Everything you're posting is personal. How can I respond to it without being "personal"? You are welcome to correct me if I get anything wrong about what you think.Why? Why make this personal to me? What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?Hmmm. I wonder which camp you fall into.
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #36Peace again to you,
B - You're still not getting it. It is not a matter of believing me or believing some other person. You should believe Christ. Hold everything up to Him. Test the (inspired or not) expression, against Christ, against love.
B - I don't see how a person can look at all the facts and then still think that a place of eternal torment ('hell') is actually still in the bible, but hey, you do you. The thread and links (including links to other threads) discussing the matter are there for anyone to read and decide for themselves, and/or even take to Christ, asking Him to reveal the truth of the matter to them.
Doesn't that contradict your entire position that we should not just accept what others claim?
For someone who does not, perhaps. But such a person need only turn to Him, have faith in Him, follow Him, listen to Him, obey His commands. Not religion, not men, not religious leaders, not even oneself.
Here are some fruits of the spirit:
....love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22, 23)
And unless a person is teaching something that is against Christ, or against love, what possible problem could you have with them, or what possible reason would you have to accuse them?
How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is seeking to know Him?
And you can think whatever you want of course, but in a similar vein as you have said to me, you thinking something is not a good reason for me to accept it. Especially not when it contradicts Christ, and I know that I am to listen to Him.
Peace again to you.
And yet, again, I never advised anyone to listen to people making claims. I advised listening to Christ (if indeed one wishes to be His disciple).Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:05 pmMy point is that claiming to "follow Christ" can be based in a personal bias and delusion rather than fact. Nobody as far as I know has the last word on what it means to listen to Christ. But more than anything else, the contradictory nature of these kinds of claims demonstrates that some of those claims are in fact based in personal bias and very possibly deceit. So the wise person is slow to believe these claims and looks for something that only Christ might reveal to a person. If the supposed revelation is something that anybody can make up, then it probably is made up.tam wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:53 pm Peace to you,
And what is your point?Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:05 pmIndividual Christians no doubt have their own ideas about following, obeying, and listening to Christ. I can recognize that people have differences regarding everything, and that includes their faith in Christ. So yes, they follow and obey and listen to Christ or think they do, but there are often differences in what they conclude about what Christ expects of them.
I have no expectations of you at all. You (Paul of Tarsus) and I have had no previous exchanges as far as I can recall. It does boggle my mind a bit that you chose to object to a post that mentions following, listening to, and obeying Christ. On a thread where someone mentioned trying to be Christian.You can do anything you think is right, but don't expect me to believe you if you don't have convincing evidence for what you say.Because I personally do not see why a Christian (and perhaps you are not claiming to be Christian, I do not know) would object to a person following, listening to, obeying Christ.
A - I did answer your question.You're not answering my question. I would think that if a person is listening to Christ, then Christ would instruct that person to answer questions fully and honestly. Do you not claim to follow and obey Christ? If so, then why should I believe you over another person who makes a similar claim yet contradicts you?See, I don't recall saying anything about listening to people who claim to 'speak for Christ'. I said only that if one wishes to be His disciple, then HE is the One to follow and obey.Whom did Christ speak to if two people claiming to speak for him contradict each other?
B - You're still not getting it. It is not a matter of believing me or believing some other person. You should believe Christ. Hold everything up to Him. Test the (inspired or not) expression, against Christ, against love.
A - How does that response address the comment?I tested your claim that eternal punishment in hell is not in the Bible, and I found it to be wrong.Neither, you should believe Christ. Hence, test the inspired expression, as stated in my previous post.If the pope disagrees with you on what Christ has said, for example, then why should I believe you rather than him?
B - I don't see how a person can look at all the facts and then still think that a place of eternal torment ('hell') is actually still in the bible, but hey, you do you. The thread and links (including links to other threads) discussing the matter are there for anyone to read and decide for themselves, and/or even take to Christ, asking Him to reveal the truth of the matter to them.
I'm just going by what people say.Yes, obviously contradictory claims cannot all be true. But why are you assuming that everyone who makes a claim about Christ are actually His followers?These conflicts between Christ's followers matter because contradictory claims about Christ cannot all be true.
Doesn't that contradict your entire position that we should not just accept what others claim?
No, not for one who knows Christ and who is known by Christ.That quotation appears in Matthew 7:22-24, but I'm not sure if Christ really said that. What we are being told is that some people may be completely convinced that they are followers of Christ and truly listen to him, yet they will be "led down the road to destruction." Note that there are no exceptions here. Anybody might be disappointed on judgment day realizing that their hopes for eternal life will be dashed. It's very tricky business, is it not?Didn't He say that many would call Hm "Lord", but He would say to them that He never knew them?
For someone who does not, perhaps. But such a person need only turn to Him, have faith in Him, follow Him, listen to Him, obey His commands. Not religion, not men, not religious leaders, not even oneself.
Seems like you're still focusing on listening to other people and their claims, rather than listening to Christ.I suppose we need to inspect the fruit which is to say we need to scrutinize what people say about Christ checking it for substance. If it's all talk, then it doesn't amount to much because anybody can claim to be listening to Christ. Like I have already explained, if a person really listens to Christ, then that person should be able to demonstrate something that only Christ can grant. Otherwise, it's just something that anybody can say or make up.If we want to know the truth, then we need to listen to the One who IS the Truth and who speaks the truth. How exactly do you expect to sift the wheat from the chaff without knowing what makes something wheat?
Here are some fruits of the spirit:
....love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22, 23)
And unless a person is teaching something that is against Christ, or against love, what possible problem could you have with them, or what possible reason would you have to accuse them?
So what exactly is your argument now? You claim we can't know Christ except through the bible... yet you claim the bible to be untrustworthy; and you claim that we cannot know Christ Himself because (you claim) He is not around to ask or to know. So you are saying, in effect, that it is impossible to know Christ, and therefore you would be saying that you do not know Christ.But how are we to know Christ without the Bible? Christ simply isn't around to ask what he's all about.But Christ does reflect what God wants. Christ is the Word and Image of God, the One who reveals God to us. If we know Christ, then we know His Father as well. Not because they are the same person, but because Christ is the perfect representation of His Father.As I see it, God never authored the Bible; men wrote the Bible, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what God wants.
How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is seeking to know Him?
Regardless of what you think, what you said in your previous post is not what Christ taught.I think God gave us brains to figure out love on our own, and many people love just fine without being told to love.God does indeed tell us about love.
And you can think whatever you want of course, but in a similar vein as you have said to me, you thinking something is not a good reason for me to accept it. Especially not when it contradicts Christ, and I know that I am to listen to Him.
If you're not sure what I'm claiming, what are you objecting to? Please also note that Neb specifically mentioned trying to be Christian. Christ is in the very word. How can one be Christian without Christ?I'm not sure what you're claiming, but I just want my readers to understand that there's more to God than a lot of talk about obeying Christ and listening to him.Did someone claim otherwise?Well, I did mention such prophets. God no doubt doesn't want us to believe just anybody who claims to speak to and for Christ.
I do not care what a lot of people say; I am saying that I am not part of religion. My Lord is the One who has kept me OUT of religion. Do with that as you will.A lot of religious people say that. Since religion has earned a bad reputation, it may be best to distance oneself from it.I am not part of religion.
Or the scribes (who mistranslated). Or the religious leaders who erroneously taught that doctrine, even though it is obvious that the world of the dead (Sheol/Hades, translated later into "hell") was not a place of suffering. Job longed to go there to escape his suffering. And that place (the world of the dead; Sheol/Hades/"Hell") is later thrown INTO the lake of fire. Obviously the lake of fire and 'hell' cannot be the same place. But these things are discussed in those threads and links.I've read the Bible, and it obviously tells us about eternal torment suffered by sinners in a lake of fire. If we disagree, then maybe we are confused by the men who wrote the Bible.I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with, but if you click on the links, you will find evidence supporting the claim that the 'doctrine of eternal hellfire' is not present in the bible. It is indeed something that religion invented (adding to or taking away from the truth). But it is not actually in the bible.
So you were not implying something about my person (snide or otherwise)? Because I do not see what your response had to do with my answer to your question. I simply answered your question about God dealing (or not) with evil. Though I am not a fan of that question (in the context of judgment), because it implies that those who receive life are good, without sin, and that is not the case.Everything you're posting is personal. How can I respond to it without being "personal"?Why? Why make this personal to me? What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?Hmmm. I wonder which camp you fall into.
Peace again to you.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #37So if Christ speaks to a person, then we shouldn't listen to that person passing on what Christ has told her.
I'm just wary of any person claiming that God or Christ has spoken to that person. There are a lot of delusional and deceptive people who use religion for their own purposes that may have little to do with truth.It does boggle my mind a bit that you chose to object to a post that mentions following, listening to, and obeying Christ. On a thread where someone mentioned trying to be Christian.
No you didn't. 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.I did answer your question.
OK, I just took your advice, and my answer from Christ is to distrust people on internet discussion boards who say they listen to him.You should believe Christ. Hold everything up to Him. Test the (inspired or not) expression, against Christ, against love.
I've read the Bible to see what Christ supposedly said about hell, and I read that he preached eternal hellfire to punish sinners. So if I believe Christ like you advised, then I know you are wrong.How does that response address the comment?
Why do I need to read anything you linked to if I can just listen to Christ? I have read the Bible--is that not enough to get what Christ said?The thread and links (including links to other threads) discussing the matter are there for anyone to read and decide for themselves, and/or even take to Christ, asking Him to reveal the truth of the matter to them.
When it comes to claims of following Christ, all I have are the claims. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the claims, but I do consider those claims for truth. In particular, I look for claims that contradict other claims.Doesn't that contradict your entire position that we should not just accept what others claim?I'm just going by what people say.
Matthew 7:22-24 clearly reveals that some people may be convinced that they listen to and obey Christ, yet they can still be wrong. So even the Bible discloses that listening to Christ is no sure way to know his truth. I don't believe Matthew 7:22-24, but I assume you do.No, not for one who knows Christ and who is known by Christ.Anybody might be disappointed on judgment day realizing that their hopes for eternal life will be dashed. It's very tricky business, is it not?
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.Seems like you're still focusing on listening to other people and their claims, rather than listening to Christ.
I think there are a lot of evils and deceptions in the world that have nothing to do with Christ. That's why I might have a problem with them.And unless a person is teaching something that is against Christ, or against love, what possible problem could you have with them, or what possible reason would you have to accuse them?
You should never dodge a question especially with a question. I didn't say we can know Christ with the Bible, but you say you can know him with the Bible. And yes, I don't think we can necessarily know Christ. God doesn't work that way.So what exactly is your argument now? You claim we can't know Christ except through the bible... yet you claim the bible to be untrustworthy; and you claim that we cannot know Christ Himself because (you claim) He is not around to ask or to know. So you are saying, in effect, that it is impossible to know Christ, and therefore you would be saying that you do not know Christ.But how are we to know Christ without the Bible? Christ simply isn't around to ask what he's all about.
I suppose I'd advise that person to come up with something that can convince others that they are truly a prophet of Christ--something that only God could grant.How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is seeking to know Him?
I was referring to your claim to listen to Christ--I'm not completely sure what that means.If you're not sure what I'm claiming, what are you objecting to?
I suppose you can't be Christian without Christ.How can one be Christian without Christ?
Tam, please don't answer my questions with questions. Answer my questions with answers to my questions.So you were not implying something about my person (snide or otherwise)?Everything you're posting is personal. How can I respond to it without being "personal"?
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #38Peace to you,
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.
Christ is the Truth. Listening to Him is listening to the truth.
And there are a lot of people who agree with one another as well, but that does not mean that they are speaking or even believing what is true. Ten million people can believe that God wants us to curse our enemies, but it would still be false, regardless of their agreement with one another. Christ is the test of truth - not whether people agree or disagree with one another.
But we can know - truly know - Christ because He is a real person; He is alive; He speaks; His sheep listen to His voice. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him.
I asked, "How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is SEEKING TO know Him?"
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?
Of course none of that matters anymore, does it? Not if you asked Christ a question and He answered you, right? You know now that your previous position was in error. Unless of course you were not being truthful earlier.
But you just said that you asked Christ a question and He gave you a very specific answer. So you must know what I mean by now - unless of course you were not being truthful earlier.
You absolutely could have responded without being personal. You asked 'what about evil' (when I mentioned that there is no eternal torment). I responded (though I added to that response in the previous post), that some receive eternal life and some do not. There was absolutely no need for you to have responded as you did. None at all. We were speaking about how God might handle the problem of evil (with regard to the judgment), and you chose to counter with something personal that had nothing to do with the point.
Peace again to you.
We should hold it up to the Light (to Christ). 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.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:42 pmSo if Christ speaks to a person, then we shouldn't listen to that person passing on what Christ has told her.
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.
Nothing wrong with being wary, but that is why 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.I'm just wary of any person claiming that God or Christ has spoken to that person. There are a lot of delusional and deceptive people who use religion for their own purposes that may have little to do with truth.It does boggle my mind a bit that you chose to object to a post that mentions following, listening to, and obeying Christ. On a thread where someone mentioned trying to be Christian.
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').No you didn't. 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.I did answer your question.
Christ is the Truth. Listening to Him is listening to the truth.
And there are a lot of people who agree with one another as well, but that does not mean that they are speaking or even believing what is true. Ten million people can believe that God wants us to curse our enemies, but it would still be false, regardless of their agreement with one another. Christ is the test of truth - not whether people agree or disagree with one another.
Interesting (though I'm curious what question you asked). Either way, you must admit now that Christ does indeed speak and that a person can hear Him, yes? Which would confirm that what I said was true...OK, I just took your advice, and my answer from Christ is to distrust people on internet discussion boards who say they listen to him.You should believe Christ. Hold everything up to Him. Test the (inspired or not) expression, against Christ, against love.
These two questions appear to be a bit disjointed. To the first: you can just listen to Christ, but you have been saying up to this point that you cannot. To the second: sometimes; but 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.Why do I need to read anything you linked to if I can just listen to Christ? I have read the Bible--is that not enough to get what Christ said?The thread and links (including links to other threads) discussing the matter are there for anyone to read and decide for themselves, and/or even take to Christ, asking Him to reveal the truth of the matter to them.
Matthew 7:22-24 says nothing about said people believing that they listened to Christ; only that they believed they were doing things in His name.Matthew 7:22-24 clearly reveals that some people may be convinced that they listen to and obey Christ, yet they can still be wrong. So even the Bible discloses that listening to Christ is no sure way to know his truth. I don't believe Matthew 7:22-24, but I assume you do.No, not for one who knows Christ and who is known by Christ.Anybody might be disappointed on judgment day realizing that their hopes for eternal life will be dashed. It's very tricky business, is it not?
But you just claimed that you asked Him a question and He answered you. Was that untrue?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.Seems like you're still focusing on listening to other people and their claims, rather than listening to Christ.
That answer does not make sense (at least not to me). Can you rephrase or elaborate?I think there are a lot of evils and deceptions in the world that have nothing to do with Christ. That's why I might have a problem with them.And unless a person is teaching something that is against Christ, or against love, what possible problem could you have with them, or what possible reason would you have to accuse them?
I did not make that claim. We can know some about Him (words and teachings) with the Bible.You should never dodge a question especially with a question. I didn't say we can know Christ with the Bible, but you say you can know him with the Bible.So what exactly is your argument now? You claim we can't know Christ except through the bible... yet you claim the bible to be untrustworthy; and you claim that we cannot know Christ Himself because (you claim) He is not around to ask or to know. So you are saying, in effect, that it is impossible to know Christ, and therefore you would be saying that you do not know Christ.But how are we to know Christ without the Bible? Christ simply isn't around to ask what he's all about.
But we can know - truly know - Christ because He is a real person; He is alive; He speaks; His sheep listen to His voice. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him.
No offense (truly), but who are you to say how God works? How do you know God doesn't work that way?And yes, I don't think we can necessarily know Christ. God doesn't work that way.
That does not address the question I asked.I suppose I'd advise that person to come up with something that can convince others that they are truly a prophet of Christ--something that only God could grant.How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is seeking to know Him?
I asked, "How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is SEEKING TO know Him?"
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?
Of course none of that matters anymore, does it? Not if you asked Christ a question and He answered you, right? You know now that your previous position was in error. Unless of course you were not being truthful earlier.
Still?I was referring to your claim to listen to Christ--I'm not completely sure what that means.If you're not sure what I'm claiming, what are you objecting to?
But you just said that you asked Christ a question and He gave you a very specific answer. So you must know what I mean by now - unless of course you were not being truthful earlier.
Okay then. No need to be taking issue with a person simply for advising someone who claims to be trying to be Christian, that Christ is the One to whom they should listen, follow, obey. Right?I suppose you can't be Christian without Christ.How can one be Christian without Christ?
Okay.Tam, please don't answer my questions with questions. Answer my questions with answers to my questions.So you were not implying something about my person (snide or otherwise)?Everything you're posting is personal. How can I respond to it without being "personal"?
You absolutely could have responded without being personal. You asked 'what about evil' (when I mentioned that there is no eternal torment). I responded (though I added to that response in the previous post), that some receive eternal life and some do not. There was absolutely no need for you to have responded as you did. None at all. We were speaking about how God might handle the problem of evil (with regard to the judgment), and you chose to counter with something personal that had nothing to do with the point.
Peace again to you.
Last edited by tam on Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20496
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #39Moderator Intervention
I would agree with this. Also, Paul of Tarsus, consider the matter dropped and stop prolonging the personal debate after my comment. If you do want further clarification, PM me.
______________
Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Trying to be a Christian
Post #40I 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.tam wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:15 pmTest 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.
Fine. I will try that shortly....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.
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.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').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.
I suppose it's possible that Christ can and does speak to people.Either way, you must admit now that Christ does indeed speak and that a person can hear Him, yes?
So reading the Bible isn't enough; we need experts to tell us what we just got done reading....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.
I think it's safe to say that those rebuffed by Christ believed they listened to him. Why would they think they didn't listen to him? Anyway, Matthew 7:22-24 tells us that their efforts were in vain. Listening to Christ did them no good.Matthew 7:22-24 says nothing about said people believing that they listened to Christ; only that they believed they were doing things in His name.
Please allow me to defer for a while answering your question and ask you to answer it for us. 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.But you just claimed that you asked Him a question and He answered you. Was that untrue?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.
I see that I'm not allowed the privilege to say I listen to God.No offense (truly), but who are you to say how God works? How do you know God doesn't work that way?
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 knowing Christ is good, then God would grant all of us the opportunity to know Christ. Since many if not most people have little exposure to Christ, then it's logical to conclude that God would not neglect billions of people that way. It's more likely that those who say they know Christ are deluded or even deceitful.
I don't think I would be able to help them that way.I asked, "How then do you expect to be able to help someone who is SEEKING TO know 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.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?
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.