ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
Aimiel
Well-known member
Thank God that we have far more proof of God's Word being true than even if we (personally) heard Him proclaim it. We have The Holy Ghost, Who is Spirit, Who bears witness along with our spirit (the real 'us') down on the inside of us that these things are true.
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
So he physically breathed the breath of life into you? Aside from my question the only thing I have to say about this is that the only person or people who can take credit for your creation are your parents.
I’ve said from the beginning that it is far more plausible that what I don’t see doesn’t exist therefore I don’t see it than some invisible deity out of spite not letting me see it.
God doesn’t need to be a child, he has millions of followers just like you to do that for him. What’s with the hatred, LH? Why the insults? Why not accept that I have a different world view that is based on substantial proof and evidence and you don’t? I’ve always said that you’re free to believe whatever you want, but you’re so nasty about it.
I’m selfish? Your god is so sensitive, LH. All he has to do is make my pen spin around and it would rock my world, I would know for a fact that he was up there and I would believe.
Uh, not at all and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Now check this out…..
Great! Now let’s get back down to the meat of this argument, prove that you have a soul. You can’t expect to make outlandish claims like the existence of your soul without me asking you for the proof that it exists. Prove it LH, prove it. You can’t, you know you can’t, I know you can’t, and everyone else reading this BS knows you can’t.
Listen, you can’t prove that you have a soul, you can’t prove that Christ is spirit, so be careful what you pass off as indisputable. Also, after making claims about souls, spirits and all of that other BS that you can’t prove, you may want to be careful who you call a selfish, arrogant little child.
Aimiel,
Aimiel, you really need to go to bed and never get out. Saying that the holy ghost is proof of your belief has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. You can’t even prove that the holy ghost exists so therefore using the holy ghost as proof of your belief is the most childish, foolish, over the top and imbecilic argument I’ve ever heard. Aimiel, it’s a waste of my time to respond to you. Please leave my thread.
Uh…. Seeing as how I worship myself, no, that’s not me at all. I don’t think it’s possible to contact god at all.
PureX, you’re cool.
Granite, witty as ever.
Soulman, I wish Clete and Hilston were here for that.
Rolf Ernst
New member
To all who think Christianity is based on a FEAR OF PAIN--WRONG!
If that is your motive, forget it. Jesus came to save His people from their SIN. Deliverance from judgement is absolutely secondary and is not a motivating factor in true salvation.
Read what John the baptist said to those whose concern was with the "wrath to come." Then, if the shoe fits, wear it. And the shoe WILL fit those who are concerned about judgement rather than getting rid of the sin that burdens them.
If that is your motive, forget it. Jesus came to save His people from their SIN. Deliverance from judgement is absolutely secondary and is not a motivating factor in true salvation.
Read what John the baptist said to those whose concern was with the "wrath to come." Then, if the shoe fits, wear it. And the shoe WILL fit those who are concerned about judgement rather than getting rid of the sin that burdens them.
Aimiel…how do you know what you know about Jesus? What you know about Jesus, you read in the Bible. Not feelings about Jesus, facts about Jesus. You wouldn’t be able to utter his name, no less know enough to actually “believe” in him without eyes to see and ears to hear. Granted, the Holy Spirit may have been “drawing” you to Jesus, and “opening” the Scriptures, even preparing the way, but brother, if you didn’t have the eyes to see or the ears to hear the gospel in the first place, you’d be as ignorant of Jesus as a block of wood, Holy Spirit or no Holy Spirit.
The means of, and the need for salvation must first be communicated and taught. You don’t just sit there and stare at a prospective convert and “mesmerize” him with the holiness of your presence, do you? You tell him about Jesus. And you show him where it says so in the Bible. In fact, without the “visual aid” of the Bible you’d be lost trying to convince anyone of anything.
You introduce the Holy Spirit as if it proves something. Platitudes are not arguments. It is a given that our senses are reliable for the simple reason that seeing and hearing is the means by which the gospel is being offered. The Christian might argue that our senses alone are insufficient to grasp the spiritual meaning of Scripture, which is true, from the Christian's point of view, but truly beside the point. We are not talking about “spiritual” meaning. We are talking about hard facts.
If we cannot rely on our senses to “know,” then we can’t be responsible for the conclusions we draw from the evidence available to us. A blind man is not “responsible” for falling if someone deliberately trips him. Not “knowing” he was about to be tripped is not the “fault” of the blind man. It is the fault of the one who tripped him and withheld information that could have prevented him from falling. If our senses can’t be trusted, we’re like blind men “blamed” for not watching where we’re going. If we can’t trust our senses, God has placed yet another obstacle in our path. Not only do we enter the world with our judgments crippled by Adam’s sin, we’re given fleshly, fallen bodies and senses that may or may not be presenting us with an accurate picture of reality. So much for the "biblical worldview."
Soulman
The means of, and the need for salvation must first be communicated and taught. You don’t just sit there and stare at a prospective convert and “mesmerize” him with the holiness of your presence, do you? You tell him about Jesus. And you show him where it says so in the Bible. In fact, without the “visual aid” of the Bible you’d be lost trying to convince anyone of anything.
You introduce the Holy Spirit as if it proves something. Platitudes are not arguments. It is a given that our senses are reliable for the simple reason that seeing and hearing is the means by which the gospel is being offered. The Christian might argue that our senses alone are insufficient to grasp the spiritual meaning of Scripture, which is true, from the Christian's point of view, but truly beside the point. We are not talking about “spiritual” meaning. We are talking about hard facts.
If we cannot rely on our senses to “know,” then we can’t be responsible for the conclusions we draw from the evidence available to us. A blind man is not “responsible” for falling if someone deliberately trips him. Not “knowing” he was about to be tripped is not the “fault” of the blind man. It is the fault of the one who tripped him and withheld information that could have prevented him from falling. If our senses can’t be trusted, we’re like blind men “blamed” for not watching where we’re going. If we can’t trust our senses, God has placed yet another obstacle in our path. Not only do we enter the world with our judgments crippled by Adam’s sin, we’re given fleshly, fallen bodies and senses that may or may not be presenting us with an accurate picture of reality. So much for the "biblical worldview."
Soulman
You are a jerk and a fool, judging things by mere appearance. My boss doesn't give a rip what I do or how I do it as long as my work gets done correctly and in a timely manner. I don't get paid by the hour and he is fully aware of what I do and when I do it and is exceedingly happy with the results I produce. As a matter of fact, I just got a pretty sizable raise just last week. You need to sit down, shut up, and mind your own business.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Soulman,
You are arguing against a point that has not been made. Either read the thread and get to where you understand the argument or go away. Wickwoman and prodigal have together decided to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that Jim and I are arguing a point that we are not arguing. They are both liars. Earlier posts of theirs very clearly demonstrate that they both understood the point but are now acting as if we are saying something we are not. If you wish to join them fine, but don't expect me to come running trying to get you to understand it. If you want to be stupid be stupid, I don't care. If, on the other hand, you want to read just enough so that you understand the argument then by all means do so and I will happily discuss it with you. To make it easier for you, I'll give links to the posts that will give a clear understanding of what the actual argument is.
Post 137
Post 149
Post 155
If you'll simply read these three posts you will be caught up, or at least you will understand that we are not arguing that you cannot trust your senses.
If you disagree with the argument after having read these three posts and whatever else more you wish to read then by all means let me know and we will discuss it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
When I get accused of stealing by someone who doesn't know me from Adam or anything about my work environment or what sort of relationship I have with my employer or any number of other important factors that would go into making such a judgment I respond appropriately and defend myself. I didn't say anything about him that was not clearly true based on the words of Jesus Himself.
John 7:24 [jesus]Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."[/jesus]
So, you never knew Him. Correct?
You say this because you don't believe there's a God. I am living proof GOd exists, but since you prefer to deny God, and His existence, you deny that I am proof. I was right. You refuse to see proof for what it is, and claim it is something else.
[qutoe]I’ve said from the beginning that it is far more plausible that what I don’t see doesn’t exist therefore I don’t see it than some invisible deity out of spite not letting me see it.[/quote]
It is not God's fault that you don't see it. It isn't God who isn't letting you see it. It's you.
You're the one being a child.
I have no hatred.
Because you're an idiot, and someone needs to tell you. You keep twisting everything I say. And if you're not an idiot, then you're twisiting on purpose. And that makes you a jerk.
What I believe is based on substantial proof. I sought God out, because I wanted to be sure.
That's what you get when you spit in the face of my God.
God isn't sensitive. What makes you say that, anyway? And you would not believe. You would deny your senses. You would tell yourself you were seeing things, and that you needed to cut out caffiene, or alcohol...or get more sleep.
You made it sound like you hated free will. You're upset that God allows you to not believe in Him.
I don't have to. And, seeing as how we are not in the same room, or even the same town, how would I? And it's not my soul to prove, anyway. It's God's. He owns me now. He bought me with the blood of His Son. I am not my own. I am His.
Truth hurts, eh? You arrogant, selfish, little twit.
Lighthouse, we're running in circles here. By your definition no; by mine it's impossible to know Jesus Christ at all, so the question's an absurdity. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Being a "Christian" by definition involves more than a "personal relationship" with Christ. If you insist that it does, and all a person needs is a "personal relationship with Jesus," you're more a gnostic than anything else: no church, no organization, just me and God. There's a reason why you refuse to submit to a church of any kind. Fundamentally, you're rebellious and don't want that authority holding you accountable.
Is it possible to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus and be a Hindu or Buddhist? Why or why not? Being in a relationship does not mean you have to agree completely with the other party, correct? What you're really saying is that someone needs a "personal relationship" with Jesus based on the guidelines YOU set for YOUR walk with God. Retreating to "what the Bible says" is BS because no one can agree on scripture or what constitutes a "personal" relationship with Christ.
Did I "know" Jesus? Of course not. No more than you "know" Caspar the Friendly Ghost or the Michelin Man or the Pillsbury Doughboy.
I go to church. And I agree with the Bible. If I find that my church disagrees with the Bible, I wlll leave it.
No.
Hindus are monotheistic. There is only one God, and Jesus is He. Now, Buddhists say that it is a philosophy, not a religion. So, I'm not exactly sure. But from what I have learned about Buddhism, I would say no. They don't trust in Christ's truth, which means they don't trust in Christ.
Depends. When it comes to God, He will lead you to all truth. And you will agree with Him, in the end.
What they need is to trust in Him. And allow Him to lead them into all truth. Those are the only guidelines.
Not true. And I don't retreat to what the Bible says. I submit to Christ, and let Him show me the truth. I don't rely on what I think the Bible says. I rely on God to reveal truth to me. And I know others who do so, as well. I may not know all truth, yet. But I trust in Christ. If I am wrong, He will show me. He's already done so, many times.
Child.
