Trying to be a Christian

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Neb
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:52 pm
Location: Queensland
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Trying to be a Christian

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
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 #21

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

tam wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:49 pm Peace to you Neb,
Neb wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:12 am 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.
Just a quick side point before getting to some of your points: If you want to be a disciple of Christ, then you can try following Him, listening to Him, obeying His commands. If you have no faith, and you want faith, then you could ask God to grant you faith, and if you want to know what is true, then you could also ask God to lead you to HIS truth (not man's truth, not religion's truth, rather God's truth). As for being Christian (an anointed one), that is something that Christ chooses; He is the One who makes us Christian. "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
I can see some difficulties in what you're saying here. Many people say that they follow Christ and listen to him, but they end up contradicting each other. So who did Christ speak to? You can make your own judgment, but without God's power and knowledge in evidence, I tend to be skeptical of self-appointed prophets. I think that God rarely if ever appoints prophets he speaks to. God doesn't play favorites, and he speaks for himself if he speaks at all.
(I can totally understand trying and failing to be a "Christian" - where "Christian" means being a member of the religion and believing what IT says about God - because there is so much that is false in that religion, that does not make sense.)
While I agree that there is much that is false in Christianity, I think that God is basically the Christian God minus all the nonsense.
This problem resolves itself if you understand that there is no such thing as a 'hell' of unending, unbearable torture. The doctrine of 'hell' (which is different depending upon who you ask), is incorrect. You can know this just from the words in your point 1: God is love. Love does not create such a place, knowing that many would go there to be in unending torment for all eternity. So why believe the doctrine of hell (that man created) over the statement that God is love? One of the two is incorrect. Why choose to believe that the false thing is "God is love"?
I agree that it makes no sense for God to have created hell. I think the Bible writers made up hell. But do you believe that God does nothing to punish evil? It appears that God doesn't care about evil.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Trying to be a Christian

Post #22

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:06 pm
While I agree that there is much that is false in Christianity, I think that God is basically the Christian God minus all the nonsense.
If you removed all the nonsense, there'd be no reason to believe in a God that is only known to exist in the minds of those who believe in it. The Christian God minus all the nonsense would result in no God at all. What you are suggesting would of course result in progress.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
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 #23

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

brunumb wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:39 pmAll you have really done is confirmed that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If there was indeed any compelling evidence we would not have the plethora of religious beliefs confusing the people of the world. With evidence one does not need faith.
Then it looks like you need faith as you understand it to believe what you're posting here. All I see is two assertions without reason or a shred of evidence to back up either one of them. You are exercising the very kind of blind faith that you criticize the religious for supposedly having.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Trying to be a Christian

Post #24

Post by brunumb »

William wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:29 pm Therefore having a whole lot of differing and opposing world views on the nature and overall image of The Creator does not in itself prove that The Creator doesn't exist/we are not within a Creation.
That's fine William, but that speaks to a creator not a specific creator which differs according to each religion.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
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 #25

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Miles wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:33 pm So, if you have evidence then why are you bothering with faith? Wouldn't you say "I know . . . ." or at least "I trust. . . ."? :wink:
You 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.

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? In any case, that's good enough for you, and you have no need for faith.
Faith is the trust that one puts in the truth of a conclusion, and that conclusion can be and often is based on good reason and evidence.
Then why not simply call it "trust"? What's with cloaking it in the term "faith"?
I'm not sure why trust is referred to as faith in a religious context. I suppose faith is trust in God, so to use the word trust would be too vague.
Faith is necessary because even with the best logic and evidence in the world, you need to place your confidence in that logic and evidence to accept it as establishing a truth.
And what would I call that? TRUST.
It's trust or confidence in a conclusion that has been reached.
The problem is that while faith as an equivalent to trust in general is fine, as a synonym to religious trust it becomes an excuse because its referents are seldom if ever supported by reasonable evidence. More likely than not religious faith is driven by the urgency to quell fear, which often enough will grasp at anything, logical or not, to satisfy its needs. Thing is, this lack of good evidence---good reason is entirely too scarce to matter--is its weakness. So, 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. And this is why others have pointed point out that "faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence." Believers may point to some evidence, but it's seldom ever reasoned or logical.
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.
And a good indication of this is the hundreds (thousands?) of denominations that have arisen because none of them can agree on the evidence at hand. It's far too subjective to pin down.
As if atheists don't disagree! It appears that atheism is way too subjective to pin down.
So now you know what faith really is.
So I do. Frantic trust dolled up in religious vernacular.
You should know. You just got done posting much of your own "frantic trust dolled up in atheistic vernacular."

User avatar
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 #26

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:06 pm
tam wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:49 pm Peace to you Neb,
Neb wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:12 am 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.
Just a quick side point before getting to some of your points: If you want to be a disciple of Christ, then you can try following Him, listening to Him, obeying His commands. If you have no faith, and you want faith, then you could ask God to grant you faith, and if you want to know what is true, then you could also ask God to lead you to HIS truth (not man's truth, not religion's truth, rather God's truth). As for being Christian (an anointed one), that is something that Christ chooses; He is the One who makes us Christian. "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
I can see some difficulties in what you're saying here.

Who else would a Christian follow, obey, listen to... if not Christ?
Many people say that they follow Christ and listen to him, but they end up contradicting each other. So who did Christ speak to?
This sounds like it might be difficult only for the person who is listening to men, instead of listening to Christ. Otherwise, why would it matter that other people contradict one another? If you are listening to Christ and following Him, then YOU remain in Him.

As for testing the inspired expression (and/or claims that other people make), you should hold all things up against the Light (Christ) to see if they are true or not. Test against Christ, because He is the Truth and the Light, and the One to whom God said to listen. Test also against love, since God is love. So if someone says "God wants you to curse your enemies", then you can know that this is not true. Because a) that is not from love, and b) Christ commanded us to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to bless and not to curse.

And if you are going to err (and we all err), then err on the side of love. Because love covers over a multitude of sins, and love is the law of God (from the beginning).
You can make your own judgment, but without God's power and knowledge in evidence, I tend to be skeptical of self-appointed prophets. I think that God rarely if ever appoints prophets he speaks to. God doesn't play favorites, and he speaks for himself if he speaks at all.
God speaks to us through His Son (Jah'eshua). I made no mention of self-appointed prophets.

(I can totally understand trying and failing to be a "Christian" - where "Christian" means being a member of the religion and believing what IT says about God - because there is so much that is false in that religion, that does not make sense.)
While I agree that there is much that is false in Christianity, I think that God is basically the Christian God minus all the nonsense.
The God and Father of Christ, who is as Christ reveals Him. Obviously God is not as religion reveals Him, considering how divided religion is, on God.
This problem resolves itself if you understand that there is no such thing as a 'hell' of unending, unbearable torture. The doctrine of 'hell' (which is different depending upon who you ask), is incorrect. You can know this just from the words in your point 1: God is love. Love does not create such a place, knowing that many would go there to be in unending torment for all eternity. So why believe the doctrine of hell (that man created) over the statement that God is love? One of the two is incorrect. Why choose to believe that the false thing is "God is love"?
I agree that it makes no sense for God to have created hell. I think the Bible writers made up hell.
Bible writers did not make up hell (as represented by the doctrine of eternal torment). Perhaps click on the links provided in my original post to Neb to see this? Men/religion made that doctrine up, and the erring pen of the scribes makes it seem as if it is supported in the bible. But it is not.
But do you believe that God does nothing to punish evil? It appears that God doesn't care about evil.
Some people receive eternal life, and some do not.



Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
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 #27

Post by tam »

[Replying to Neb in post #1]

So here is #2:
Mankind is evil because Satan got the better of God in the Garden of Eden with the result that most of mankind became subject to eternal punishment. Either God wanted Satan to do this, in which case it can’t be said God is good or loving. Or God didn’t want Satan to do so, in which case God is less powerful than Satan. If that is the case, then maybe we should worship Satan instead. After all, we only have God’s word for it that Satan is the bad one and Satan hasn’t made any threats to torment us with fire and brimstone for all eternity.God knows the future and would have known before he made Satan that Satan would set himself up against God and then lead most of mankind into sin and consequent punishment. Yet he still created him that way. Clearly that was his intention all along.
Again, a couple of caveats: 1 - There is no competition between God and Satan. Satan is not a threat to God. Satan is our (man's) adversary; his accusation to us is that we will 'curse God and die' if things get too hard; that we will not remain faithful. God allows us to answer that accusation for ourselves. 2 - there does not seem to be any consideration in the above for people (including spirit beings/angels) being free to make their own choices. Satan corrupted himself.


What I wanted to address in this point though is in the bold:
God knows the future...
Yes, He does. Which means that He also knows every person who proves that accusation wrong; who remains faithful; who learns to reject the wrong and choose the right and be the stronger for it. He knows what His Son would do, and how that would turn out, and the love that kind of love would inspire in turn. He knows how all of this turns out. To suggest that He was wrong to create Satan because He knew what Satan would do is a bit shortsighted. God also knows the 'end'. Knowing what would happen, and the choices that people would make, He knew to prepare a Way (Christ) for His children to return to Him and to receive eternal life, with no more suffering or death or mourning. He did this - and all that He does - out of love; and that inspires love and loyalty in turn.

We are the ones who cannot see far ahead.





Peace again to you!

User avatar
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 #28

Post by Miles »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:39 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:33 pm So, if you have evidence then why are you bothering with faith? Wouldn't you say "I know . . . ." or at least "I trust. . . ."? :wink:
You 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.
In 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.

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?
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.

In any case, that's good enough for you, and you have no need for faith.
Correct. However, I do have non-religious trust, a far different animal.

Faith is necessary because even with the best logic and evidence in the world, you need to place your confidence in that logic and evidence to accept it as establishing a truth.
And what would I call that? TRUST.
It's trust or confidence in a conclusion that has been reached.
Yes it is, but in the case of faith it's almost GIGO.

The problem is that while faith as an equivalent to trust in general is fine, as a synonym to religious trust it becomes an excuse because its referents are seldom if ever supported by reasonable evidence. More likely than not religious faith is driven by the urgency to quell fear, which often enough will grasp at anything, logical or not, to satisfy its needs. Thing is, this lack of good evidence---good reason is entirely too scarce to matter--is its weakness. So, 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. And this is why others have pointed point out that "faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence." Believers may point to some evidence, but it's seldom ever reasoned or logical.
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.
I gave you my reasoning. The evidence for it is in the eating. Simply take any assertion of faith and closely look at its basis. Is it well founded in fact and logic?


And a good indication of this is the hundreds (thousands?) of denominations that have arisen because none of them can agree on the evidence at hand. It's far too subjective to pin down.
As if atheists don't disagree! It appears that atheism is way too subjective to pin down.
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.

So now you know what faith really is.
So I do. Frantic trust dolled up in religious vernacular.
You should know. You just got done posting much of your own "frantic trust dolled up in atheistic vernacular."
Boy! Ya got me there! Good One! Image C'mon P of T you can do better than, "So's your old man."


.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
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 #29

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

tam wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:08 pm Who else would a Christian follow, obey, listen to... if not Christ?
Individual 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.
Many people say that they follow Christ and listen to him, but they end up contradicting each other. So who did Christ speak to?
This sounds like it might be difficult only for the person who is listening to men, instead of listening to Christ. Otherwise, why would it matter that other people contradict one another? If you are listening to Christ and following Him, then YOU remain in Him.
Can you please answer my question? Whom did Christ speak to if two people claiming to speak for him contradict each other? If the pope disagrees with you on what Christ has said, for example, then why should I believe you rather than him? These conflicts between Christ's followers matter because contradictory claims about Christ cannot all be true. If we want to know the truth, then we must "sift the wheat from the chaff."
As for testing the inspired expression (and/or claims that other people make), you should hold all things up against the Light (Christ) to see if they are true or not. Test against Christ, because He is the Truth and the Light, and the One to whom God said to listen. Test also against love, since God is love. So if someone says "God wants you to curse your enemies", then you can know that this is not true. Because a) that is not from love, and b) Christ commanded us to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to bless and not to curse.
How exactly are we to "test against Christ"? I assume you mean to read the Bible. As I see it, God never authored the Bible; men wrote the Bible, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what God wants. The Bible is then not a trustworthy source of knowledge. If we want to really know what God wants, then we must discover on our own what he wants from us.
And if you are going to err (and we all err), then err on the side of love. Because love covers over a multitude of sins, and love is the law of God (from the beginning).
I don't think that God would bother to tell us anything about love. Our ideas about love are way too trivial for him to try to correct us about, and he no doubt realizes that we can arrive at our own conclusions.
You can make your own judgment, but without God's power and knowledge in evidence, I tend to be skeptical of self-appointed prophets. I think that God rarely if ever appoints prophets he speaks to. God doesn't play favorites, and he speaks for himself if he speaks at all.
God speaks to us through His Son (Jah'eshua). I made no mention of self-appointed prophets.
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. If Christ speaks to anybody, then obviously that person should be able to prophesy what others cannot. A good way to spot a false prophet is to check what they say looking for trivialities that anybody can say or make up. And frankly, Tam, quoting what Christ said about love is one of those things that anybody can do. I expect more from a true prophet.
The God and Father of Christ, who is as Christ reveals Him. Obviously God is not as religion reveals Him, considering how divided religion is, on God.
But you are part of that division. We all are. People disagree about almost everything, and disagreeing about God is no different. I try to understand the views of those who disagree with me and look for truth in those views. Who knows? They might know something I don't.
Bible writers did not make up hell (as represented by the doctrine of eternal torment). Perhaps click on the links provided in my original post to Neb to see this? Men/religion made that doctrine up, and the erring pen of the scribes makes it seem as if it is supported in the bible. But it is not.
I must disagree. Men wrote the Bible, and like all men they could be violent and hateful. Throughout the Bible they portrayed God as cruel and vengeful. It is no coincidence that according to their stories God's wrath was poured out on the enemies of those who wrote the Bible. The Bible is downright blasphemous.
Some people receive eternal life, and some do not.
Hmmm. I wonder which camp you fall into.

User avatar
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 #30

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:05 pm
tam wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:08 pm Who else would a Christian follow, obey, listen to... if not Christ?
Individual 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.
And what is your point?

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.
Many people say that they follow Christ and listen to him, but they end up contradicting each other. So who did Christ speak to?
This sounds like it might be difficult only for the person who is listening to men, instead of listening to Christ. Otherwise, why would it matter that other people contradict one another? If you are listening to Christ and following Him, then YOU remain in Him.
Can you please answer my question?
I did, in the bit that followed the above, but my point above is valid.
Whom did Christ speak to if two people claiming to speak for him contradict each other?
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.
If the pope disagrees with you on what Christ has said, for example, then why should I believe you rather than him?


Neither, you should believe Christ. Hence, test the inspired expression, as stated in my previous post.
These conflicts between Christ's followers matter because contradictory claims about Christ cannot all be true.
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?

Didn't He say that many would call Hm "Lord", but He would say to them that He never knew them?
If we want to know the truth, then we must "sift the wheat from the chaff."
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?
As for testing the inspired expression (and/or claims that other people make), you should hold all things up against the Light (Christ) to see if they are true or not. Test against Christ, because He is the Truth and the Light, and the One to whom God said to listen. Test also against love, since God is love. So if someone says "God wants you to curse your enemies", then you can know that this is not true. Because a) that is not from love, and b) Christ commanded us to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to bless and not to curse.
How exactly are we to "test against Christ"? I assume you mean to read the Bible.


I mean ask Him, and if one does not have ears to hear (yet), then ask for them.

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.
As I see it, God never authored the Bible; men wrote the Bible, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what God wants.
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.
The Bible is then not a trustworthy source of knowledge. If we want to really know what God wants, then we must discover on our own what he wants from us.
God led me to His Son when I sought to know what was true, what God wanted from me.
And if you are going to err (and we all err), then err on the side of love. Because love covers over a multitude of sins, and love is the law of God (from the beginning).
I don't think that God would bother to tell us anything about love. Our ideas about love are way too trivial for him to try to correct us about, and he no doubt realizes that we can arrive at our own conclusions.
You took issue with me because I said that a person should listen to Christ if indeed that person is seeking to be His disciple; or seeking to be Christian. Perhaps you took issue with that because you teach something other than what Christ teaches?

God does indeed tell us about love. For love, He sent His Son. Love (for His Son) is the reason that He gives that Son all power and all authority (except over God Himself).

"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6

Christ Himself teaches us that the most important commandments are to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind; to love our neighbor as ourselves; but also to love our enemies and to love one another as He has loved us.

He also told us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect - which is accomplished by loving also our enemies.

And God is love.

How can you possibly suggest that God (the God and Father of Christ at least) would not bother to tell us anything about love?


You can make your own judgment, but without God's power and knowledge in evidence, I tend to be skeptical of self-appointed prophets. I think that God rarely if ever appoints prophets he speaks to. God doesn't play favorites, and he speaks for himself if he speaks at all.
God speaks to us through His Son (Jah'eshua). I made no mention of self-appointed prophets.
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.
Did someone claim otherwise?
If Christ speaks to anybody, then obviously that person should be able to prophesy what others cannot. A good way to spot a false prophet is to check what they say looking for trivialities that anybody can say or make up. And frankly, Tam, quoting what Christ said about love is one of those things that anybody can do. I expect more from a true prophet.
And where did I claim to be a prophet?

I am a servant, I am a witness to Christ, and I am sheep (of Christ). Christ said that His sheep would listen to His voice. He calls His sheep by name and His sheep listen to His voice.

The God and Father of Christ, who is as Christ reveals Him. Obviously God is not as religion reveals Him, considering how divided religion is, on God.
But you are part of that division.
I am not part of religion. If you want to read more into my statement than what I said, that is on you.

Bible writers did not make up hell (as represented by the doctrine of eternal torment). Perhaps click on the links provided in my original post to Neb to see this? Men/religion made that doctrine up, and the erring pen of the scribes makes it seem as if it is supported in the bible. But it is not.
I must disagree. Men wrote the Bible, and like all men they could be violent and hateful. Throughout the Bible they portrayed God as cruel and vengeful. It is no coincidence that according to their stories God's wrath was poured out on the enemies of those who wrote the Bible. The Bible is downright blasphemous.
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.
Some people receive eternal life, and some do not.
Hmmm. I wonder which camp you fall into.
Why? Why make this personal to me? What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?


Peace again to you.

Post Reply