How To Tell Right From Wrong

[artisticsolution]

So you and I would have to decide: are the atheists the ones who are positioned to tell us what Christians really believe "faith" is, or are the Christians the ones who can tell us? And should we go with the emotive-minority view, a sort of Kierkegaardian view, or should we go with what most Christians actually think they are doing?

I think the answer to that has got to be pretty obvious, don't you?

Yes, the answer is pretty obvious.

You are mistaking Christians for Christ. Be careful who you are following. This is the danger of man made religion..God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

William Lane Craig said, "Faith is continued belief in what you have good reason to believe already."

Jesus said, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Who are you going to believe?

If faith is a "continued belief in what you have good reason to believe already" then faith is pretty easy. If you already have faith in God, then poof...your done. You are good to go to heaven. So then, why all this suspicion against your fellow man?

Is William Lane Craig your false idol? Is Christianity your false idol? If you are going to believe someone, shouldn't it be in keeping with the word of God. Who gives a damn if the lord's word is coming from a Christian's mouth or it's coming out of the mouth of an atheist? It's not the thing they say, it's is it in keeping with the word of God!

Salvation is a smokescreen for satan to fool you. Satan says, "Look over here! This one is saved! He's a Christian! Follow him!" Or Satan says, "Don't listen to this guy, who's telling you how to be a good person, the same as God did...but he's an ATHEIST! Boooo Hissss!" Either way, satan's got you by the balls.

You know who is one of the most "true" Christian I ever knew? An atheist/militant agnostic in this forum with the handle Arising_uk. Does that surprise you? You wanna know why? Because he tells the 'truth'....and if he doesn't know the 'truth', he will tell you he doesn't know. This is a guy that is pissed off at God....you wanna know why? Cause he can't understand the horror. He has a conscience and a brain both. These are the gifts God gave him. Yet, there is one thing God has not given him. And that is Faith...poor poor Arising. Poor poor AS for that matter....lol. Lucky are you that God gave you faith if that is what it takes to get into heaven.

But here's the thing, hopefully he also made you incapable of understanding, Because the God I know is not going to send someone to hell because they don't have the capacity to understand. However, if you know what you are doing, and are following Christianity because simply because they have "Christ" in their name, even though it goes against his word, he's going to say you never knew him. How do I know this? Cause the bible told me so.

Since you cannot know what another person knows, you can't know their relationship with God, you can't know the time or place they will be saved if at all. You just don't know so you cannot judge. Follow his word whether it comes out of the mouth of a Christian or it comes out of the mouth of an atheist! Hence my OP... You can't go wrong by following the word of God. Ask yourself, can I say this to my lord on judgment day?

It's far more likely to think we're believing something we think we have on at least SOME evidence. Very few people in this world are so far gone that they believe without any warrant at all; and there are far too many Christians -- and far too many rational ones -- to think that's the case. More likely, they are taking a view they think is plausible and consonant with evidence, and are continuing to believe that.

I am not doubting you. Believe what you like. Actually, I envy you it is so easy for you to have faith. It isn't for me. And since you are not inside me you can't understand my relationship with God, being one of so little faith. I ask him to show himself to me. But he hasn't done that yet. And it is not for me to question why...it's just for me to trust he has good reason. So I ask you, what type of faith is that?! That is honest faith (not saying you are dishonest here). WHAT I am saying is that I prayer to a God that I am not sure exists, that I give thanks to a God that I am not sure exists...and all the while doing it exposed and alone in my thoughts! You have no idea what an honest agnostic goes through. So please don't judge someone who is willing to go to hell, if that is what it's going to be, than to lie to others and say I know God exists! And again...I am not saying you or anyone else is lying they have faith or they know God. I am saying I would be lying if I said as much. Don't get the two confused.

So now, I will tell you a little story...a little comic relief it you will....lol.

My mom, my son (age 12ish at the time) and I, all go to breakfast one Sunday Morning.

We are at Mimi's and they have a basket of jelly', peanut butter and honey and such on the table. My mom (a devout christian...the one who thinks we should shoot em at the border ...lol) says, "Do you think it would be stealing if I took one of the peanut butters home for later?"

I said, " no mom...cause's they put it on the table for you to enjoy. It is like taking a to go bag home with you. We have already paid for it."

So my mom...worried and unsure said, " Oh...no....I had better not...it would be stealing."

Okay, fair enough...

Just then my son comes up with a brilliant idea, He hands me the peanut butter and says,

"I know! Here Mom...You take it! You're going to hell anyway!"



Man we had a good laugh over that one. Of course because it is well known in my family...I am the evil philosophy follower who has not been saved!

More to come, later.

You have a lot of good stuff here. Please don't distract me by replying online yet. Let me finish the points I want to make first, because I will feel pressured to respond to your most recent reply and forget about all this one!

[Immanuel Can]

You have a lot of good stuff here. Please don't distract me by replying online yet. Let me finish the points I want to make first, because I will feel pressured to respond to your most recent reply and forget about all this one!

I was thinking of replying at first. But I see, on review, that a lot of it is you talking through your feelings, and maybe not a distilled thought or position yet. So yes, I'll wait to hear from you what you want to say before I try to continue the conversation.

I'll check back in a day to see if you've consolidated your thoughts, and if not, I'll check back the next day.

[artisticsolution]

Faith is something for each individual and his or her relation to that which is impossible, not something that brings comfort and complacency.

Well, you seem to be denying Marx's idea that religion is an opiate or soporific drug; and that's probably good, since it's not the kind of definition a thinking Christian is going to recognize. I think it's easy to think that because Christians, by definition, believe in certain miracles ("the impossible"?)...such as the Resurrection...that they must be credulous fools, sustaining their hope on pure wishful thinking...but I think this fires so wide of the mark that an argument of that kind is simply going to seem like spurious hate-mail to most Christians.

I can assure you, my views are not 'hate' mail toward Christians. But they do hold up Christians to a higher standard. Hate the sin not the sinner, right? Remember...I was involved with the Christian Church for many year, so I have lived it...and even believed the lying part of it...for a while...but when I became aware, I could no longer lie. I couldn't even be around it. The speaking of tongues, the speaking out of both side of your mouth, the hatred of others in the lords name....I just couldn't take it anymore.

It was no different than atheists who dislike all Christians...it's no different than my sister disliking all black people...the only difference is Christians should know better.

Here is where you go wrong as a Christian I think:

In fact, it's because the cynics fire so wildly wide that Christians in general continue to dismiss their arguments. They're so full of desire to win for their side that the New Atheists don't bother to look at their subject matter carefully. For example, look how routinely they blend all "religions" by general statements. It's as if they're too dumb to see the difference between an ISIL terrorist and a Mennonite farmer. Or that they can't tell a Buddhist from a Hindu, a Taoist from a Zoroastrian or an Orthodox Jew from a Wiccan. It's bizarre and silly...and it continually amazes me that the so-called "rational" atheist set doesn't call them on it immediately.

Dumb? Really? All of 'them'? These are the lies Christians tell themselves because it is so entrenched in your minds to be suspicious of anyone who is not like you. And I must note here, I am not here to play games. Other people, may want to 'win', I don't know what is in their hearts...I am simply here to tell you the truth about what I think about Christianity. But in order to do that, you need to be open to the fact that the word "Christianity" is not "God". If you think Christianity IS God, then we have nothing left to talk, as either you are lying to me and yourself or you are not capable of understanding. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me'

I hope we can stop with all the all atheists hate Christians now.

Because after all, it not just unfair...it's unscientific. To begin a scientific inquiry with an entrenched contempt for your subject matter and a burning desire to dismiss it is not going to lead to any good scientific results. But for some reason, that just doesn't seem to occur to anyone, least of all the New Atheist set. Funny, that.

I agree. Let's not either of us do that. Deal?

And the "faith" issue is surely an excellent example of that. Their dismissive remarks haven't really produced the wholesale "enlightenment" for which they hope, because they're just shooting wide.

I am not shooting at anything. I am trying to tell you something important about the difference between Christianity and God. Here:

1.One can be a part of the Christian church and understand God's word (the bible) or one can be a part of the Christian church and not understand God's word (the bible).

2. One can be an atheist/agnostic and understand God's word (the bible) or one can be an atheist/ agnostic and not understand God's word (the bible.)

So then, some Christians are 'dumb' and some atheists are 'dumb'. Let's leave that at the door. It has nothing to do with the conversation we are having about how to tell right from wrong.

Salvation is besides the point here. Salvation is but for God to know...

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

But enough on "faith" for the moment. We'll get to why God wants it, if the discussion ever gets there. I don't want to bore you.

Yes, God wants faith. But one does not have to use your ideal of faith, or the Christian ideal of faith, or the secular idea of faith. One only has to use the faith they know to be true in their hearts. The faith that God put there...not man. He made us all unique, doesn't it stand to reason that our understanding of the word and what it means would be unique? If I followed your idea, when you could be wrong...wouldn't that be stupid of me> I mean seeing how it wouldn't be you before God on judgement day defending my beliefs. I would stand alone. So, what's say we leave my salvation in my hands and yours in your hands? This is what is meant by a 'personal relationship with God."

Salvation is besides the point here. Salvation is but for God to know.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Notice here how he said, "With GOD all things are possible" He didn't say, "With the church all things are possible."

Fair enough. There are simple folks, well-intended followers in every area of human life. We're not all made to be leaders. But even for her, it would be a great service if you could help her see the incompatibility of her strong views with Christianity. You'd at least help her to be a better follower.

But she, like you, distrusts atheists/agnostics which she believes me to be. How do you think I could help her to be a better follower when you think all atheists are anti God? (I am not atheist. I am agnostic. But in my family they are all interchangeable...lol)

Here's a bizarre thought for you: what if you were God's provision for her to help lead her on to the next step in her thinking, and thus to deliver her from mistakes she's making, and ultimately to give her a better relationship with God and a higher standing morally speaking? Wouldn't you want to do that for her?

That's not a bizarre thought...I've had it many times. Esp when I was younger. I do say things occasionally, like with the OP of this thread. And she stops for a moment and is silent, I think because she knows I am right. But here is the thing...she doesn't have my mind, God made her different for a reason. I trust him.

And here is where the control we always want comes into play. We want so desperately, to control, we will demand others to think like us! There is not a shadow of a doubt to us usually, that we know best. Oh sure, if we are reminded, we will say we trust in God. But do we really?

How do I know that God loves her innocence? How do I know what she has in her heart? It might be better than what I have in mine... that is....in God's eyes her thoughts about right and wrong might be better/truer than mine.

Kierkegaard told this great story about Abraham in "fear and trembling". It is a good example of what I am talking about above.

He talks about how absurd we would think Abraham was being by taking his son up the mountain only to kill him if instead of reading it in the bible, we had lived it in person...as a bystander. We would think Abraham was off his rocker or evil, etc. Because we have no way of knowing what is in his heart.

Imagine I told you I was about to kill my son because God told me to do it. Would you stop me? Would you think I was evil? I think you would. I don't think you would believe me that God had spoken to me. You would think me absurd.

I take very seriously my understanding of God and the scriptures. I am going to tell the world to the best of my ability what it is that I think. But I am not going to pound them senseless with my understanding...as that is my relationship with God...not theirs. My word is nothing...his is everything. I can't speak for him as I may lead another astray. I can only mention my understanding of the bible and remind others what it says. I am not about to tell them they have to believe my interpretation. Yet, this is what Christianity does. One one side of it's mouth it tells people to have a personal relationship with God, but then on the other side of it's mouth it tells people that it's interpretation is the correct one.

So I can't follow the church, or I would lose my way. In my mind, God gave me a higher conscientiousness. I understand more so I am held more accountable for my sins. I take that very seriously. Now, if I could make myself understood, to my sister or to anyone, would they follow what I think is right? God I hope not! Don't follow what I think is right...I beseech thee! Follow what the lord thinks is right with your own understanding!

You see, you could help her with this. Because she needs to realize that we must all stand before God, and every person must give an account himself/herself. ( as seen in 2 Corinthians 5:9-10, Romans 14:9-11)

Corinthians 5:9-10....9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.


Romans 14:9-19.....For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
y“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Do Not Cause Another to Stumble

13 a Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual building.

Surely you wouldn't want her to wander into that situation unprepared, would you? Not when you could help her.

I think my understanding of the biblical quotes above is sound. Read my explanation above.

The church will not be a proxy for their parishioners sins,

Catholic background, I'm guessing?

Yes, I told you in the beginning of this thread, my family was Catholic when I was little but then changed to born again Christian. Maybe you missed that?

This part, though, is a bit theologically and grammatically cluttered. I'm not quite sure what it means. I realize "infallible" means "incapable of error,"

Sorry...meant to say fallible.

Just out of curiosity, How long have you been a Christian? What is your religious background?

[Immanuel Can]

Faith is something for each individual and his or her relation to that which is impossible, not something that brings comfort and complacency.

Well, you seem to be denying Marx's idea that religion is an opiate or soporific drug; and that's probably good, since it's not the kind of definition a thinking Christian is going to recognize. I think it's easy to think that because Christians, by definition, believe in certain miracles ("the impossible"?)...such as the Resurrection...that they must be credulous fools, sustaining their hope on pure wishful thinking...but I think this fires so wide of the mark that an argument of that kind is simply going to seem like spurious hate-mail to most Christians.

I can assure you, my views are not 'hate' mail toward Christians.

I was far from suggesting you were. I was only speaking of the New Atheist set, which I have no reason to suppose includes you.

I brought them up because the definition of "faith" you proposed was similar to theirs. So if you didn't get it from them, that's fine: still, it makes the same definitional error theirs does. "Faith" does not entail "unwarranted" in its definition. I was hoping to show you that that definition was not a necessary one, and that it was one that most Christians would not recognize.

I was involved with the Christian Church for many year, so I have lived it...and even believed the lying part of it...for a while...but when I became aware, I could no longer lie. I couldn't even be around it. The speaking of tongues, the speaking out of both side of your mouth, the hatred of others in the lords name....I just couldn't take it anymore.

Catholic first, then Southern Pentecostal or Charismatic of some kind. Got it. Some Pentecostals are into a high emphasis on mystic experiences, and a real denigration of "reason" as an option. They share the New Atheists' idea that faith is only faith if it's irrational.

It's a view that I, and a large portion of Christians, would not share at all. But each to his/her own.

Here is where you go wrong as a Christian I think:

In fact, it's because the cynics fire so wildly wide that Christians in general continue to dismiss their arguments. They're so full of desire to win for their side that the New Atheists don't bother to look at their subject matter carefully. For example, look how routinely they blend all "religions" by general statements. It's as if they're too dumb to see the difference between an ISIL terrorist and a Mennonite farmer. Or that they can't tell a Buddhist from a Hindu, a Taoist from a Zoroastrian or an Orthodox Jew from a Wiccan. It's bizarre and silly...and it continually amazes me that the so-called "rational" atheist set doesn't call them on it immediately.

Dumb? Really? All of 'them'?

In a spirit of fairness, please read carefully: I did not say THEY were dumb...I said the grouping of totally different "religions" under one category, and then the blaming of all of them for whatever any of them did is dumb.

It's plain prejudice, in fact. And like all prejudices, it can sometimes be done by people who are in other ways smart. But that doesn't make the thing they're doing smart. You've got to separate the person from the action here. I'm not insulting the person; I'm pointing out the unfitness of their action, it's unworthiness for any person claiming to be "bright." And I think it's pretty clear that's warranted, in this case.

To classify all "religions" as the same really IS dumb...and unscientific. A Wiccan and an Orthodox Jew, or a ISIL Radical and a Mennonite farmer have no more in common ideologically than a Marxist and a follower of Ayn Rand. And nobody's so silly as to group Randians and Marxists together: but for some reason, we think it's okay in the other cases. Any fair-minded observer can see it makes no sense at all.

...you need to be open to the fact that the word "Christianity" is not "God".

I'm conditionally with you: if you mean by "Christianity" only a man made religion that illegitimately appropriates the name of Christ, then I agree. If, on the other hand, you mean that to follow Jesus Christ is not to follow God, then I do not, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I hope we can stop with all the all atheists hate Christians now.

Nobody said that. I certainly did not. All an "Atheist" does, by definition is deny the existence of God. He or she may have no opinion at all on Christians, except the (incorrect) view that they are wrong about God's existence.

And the "faith" issue is surely an excellent example of that. Their dismissive remarks haven't really produced the wholesale "enlightenment" for which they hope, because they're just shooting wide.

I am not shooting at anything.

No, but the New Atheist set is, and they try to use an inadequate definition of "faith" to do it. I was simply suggesting that they were shooting themselves in the foot by being so wildly inaccurate as they are in their definitions. But since you are not one of the New Atheists, you can regard my remarks as merely an aside.

On the other hand, if you happened to share their definition of "faith," then you would be just as far wide of the mark as they are. So you decide.

Salvation is besides the point here. Salvation is but for God to know...

Well, except that Christ says it's NOT beside the point, and it really IS possible to know.

(John 3:36 -- "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” or as John puts it, 1 Jn. 5:13 -- "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."

So if you really want to see it otherwise, you'll have to take a position different from that Christ takes on the subject. As for me, I'll stick with Him. After all, He would know.

Notice here how he said, "With GOD all things are possible" He didn't say, "With the church all things are possible."

There was no such thing as a church when he said it. It was before the first church was even formed.

How do you think I could help her to be a better follower when you think all atheists are anti God? (I am not atheist. I am agnostic. But in my family they are all interchangeable...lol)

Well, they're not the same where I live. And I think you're imputing your sister's views to me there. I don't believe that.

Atheists by definition have to be "anti-God," because essentially that's what Atheism is...denial of the existence of any gods. But an agnostic can be someone who is anything from nearly-atheist to nearly-religious. But you know, it wouldn't matter on this issue either way. An Atheist can be wrong about God, and still have some right ideas about other things. Or an agnostic can be uncertain, and still be right about some things.

Being wrong about one thing doesn't make a person wrong about everything.

Kierkegaard told this great story about Abraham in "fear and trembling".

Yes, I've read it. He has some good insights, but I don't agree with everything he says.

So I can't follow the church, or I would lose my way.

I'm not sure what "the church" you mean...the Catholics? The Southern Pentecostals? Those are two different groups. What about the rest of the Christians, do you guess they're all just more of the same? Or do you think there can be other groups?

Sorry...meant to say fallible.

No problem. I wondered. Well, then we agree...all people are fallible.

Just out of curiosity, How long have you been a Christian? What is your religious background?

25 years. I became a Christian by reading the great Atheists when I was in university.

[Dalek Prime]

You are mistaking Christians for Christ. Be careful who you are following. This is the danger of man made religion..God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

That's actually a fair warning against humanism too, fallible critters that they are.

[artisticsolution]

I brought them up because the definition of "faith" you proposed was similar to theirs. So if you didn't get it from them, that's fine: still, it makes the same definitional error theirs does. "Faith" does not entail "unwarranted" in its definition. I was hoping to show you that that definition was not a necessary one, and that it was one that most Christians would not recognize.

Then most Christians are wrong. Christians should not change the meaning of God's word just because it makes them feel more righteous. Again, God said,

"if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

If Christians have faith, then please, I would like to see one move the mountain. This is a really good test God gave us to see we if we really have faith or if we just are saying we have faith.

You yourself said you can't be 100% sure.

If "faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true"...

Then move that mountain. You will clearly see you do not have faith. Because you know deep down inside there is no evidence there to warrant the faith that you believe you have.

Again, faith is a very strong word. Let's not dilute it to 'strong evidence'. Faith to God means, "absolute knowledge without evidence." Hence the reason he said if you have the faith of a mustard seed you could make a mountain move. That's pretty strong evidence that he knows none of us have that strong of faith.

Why do you think he doesn't come down everyday and show himself? Because, the God of the bible want to know what is in our hearts. If he came down and showed us he was real, we would be scared shit-less and say we believe just out of the sheer fear of what we know he could do to us. That isn't conducive to knowing what is in someones heart. It's like a woman pretending to love a man because he is rich and powerful. Anyone can profess to love under those circumstances..it's easy. It's when the man loses his wealth and his power and the woman still loves him that you can see she really loves him.

Again, this is not my definition of faith...it's not k's definition of faith, it's not the 'new atheists' definition of faith. It's only God's definition. And just think how beautiful a love, that loves and obeys despite the lack of evidence of a creator? I mean holy cow! What a love that is! Unshakable, never ending, going to love and cherish despite anything thing man says! To blindly obey God's word...without evidence....without honor from anyone, without admiration from your fellow Christians...without a crutch! OMG!

To classify all "religions" as the same really IS dumb...and unscientific. A Wiccan and an Orthodox Jew, or a ISIL Radical and a Mennonite farmer have no more in common ideologically than a Marxist and a follower of Ayn Rand. And nobody's so silly as to group Randians and Marxists together: but for some reason, we think it's okay in the other cases. Any fair-minded observer can see it makes no sense at all.

I don't think atheists are doing this...what they are saying is there is a common denominator is all of them...and that is the belief in a super natural being or essence of some sort. But I will agree with one thing, atheists who have not been raised with a religious background do speak very naively sometimes about Christianity. You can't blame them, they couldn't possibly know what we know about what it is to be a Christian. However, most agree that Jesus was about as good as you get. They can't understand why most Christians don't try to live the way Jesus did....you can understand that...for you yourself have said as much against other Christians. I don't know anything about this southern Pentecostal you speak of, but it seems to me you think they lack 'true' Christianity or something? Now, you are a Christian and believe this....how is it any different from an atheist thinking the same about you?

...you need to be open to the fact that the word "Christianity" is not "God".

I'm conditionally with you: if you mean by "Christianity" only a man made religion that illegitimately appropriates the name of Christ, then I agree. If, on the other hand, you mean that to follow Jesus Christ is not to follow God, then I do not, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I mean, literally, 'Christianity" is not the same thing as God. Christianity is a man made religion. As such it can be fallible. God is not man made. God is God. As such God is infallible. You have to be careful to not listen to the men interpreting the bible but instead listen to God interpret it for you in your heart. Yes, believing the what the church tells you the bible means is easier because there is safety in numbers...we are taught this type of social behavior from day one. But faith means going against the church if the church is not following the word of the lord. In faith, you are alone. Ever see a movie called the "The Third Man"?

All an "Atheist" does, by definition is deny the existence of God. He or she may have no opinion at all on Christians, except the (incorrect) view that they are wrong about God's existence.

Again, Christians are not God. Look at what you wrote. The two sentences do not connect. Having an opinion on Christians or Christianity is not the same as having an opinion on God.

Of course, atheists can have an opinion on anything they want. God gave them free will. You are not trusting God here. You want your own will to be done...not God's.

No, but the New Atheist set is, and they try to use an inadequate definition of "faith" to do it. I was simply suggesting that they were shooting themselves in the foot by being so wildly inaccurate as they are in their definitions. But since you are not one of the New Atheists, you can regard my remarks as merely an aside.

Sure, if you extend me, atheists and your fellow Christians the same courtesy.

Salvation is besides the point here. Salvation is but for God to know...

Well, except that Christ says it's NOT beside the point, and it really IS possible to know.

(John 3:36 -- "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” or as John puts it, 1 Jn. 5:13 -- "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."

Do you 'obey' the son?

Notice here how he said, "With GOD all things are possible" He didn't say, "With the church all things are possible."

There was no such thing as a church when he said it. It was before the first church was even formed.

Surely God knows all. If he meant for you to follow Christianity instead of him, them he would have said something like when you fellowship all things are possible. Don't you see how simple and beautiful this statement is? With God all things are possible. He makes sure here that you are not following the people/church of God, as they stumble just like you. He is saying here...if you want to know me...don't listen to anyone else. He is saying, "Trust in me" (God). Quite a scary thought to be all alone in your faith...isn't it?

Just out of curiosity, How long have you been a Christian? What is your religious background?

25 years. I became a Christian by reading the great Atheists when I was in university.

[/quote]
What about before that? Any religious training as a child?

[artisticsolution]

You are mistaking Christians for Christ. Be careful who you are following. This is the danger of man made religion..God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

That's actually a fair warning against humanism too, fallible critters that they are.

Please explain what this means, dalek.

[Dalek Prime]

You are mistaking Christians for Christ. Be careful who you are following. This is the danger of man made religion..God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

That's actually a fair warning against humanism too, fallible critters that they are.

Please explain what this means, dalek.

I don't put humanity on a pedestal, and don't follow the herd. You said be careful who you are following. I am in agreement with that statement. I won't replace 'God' with the new God of humanity.

[artisticsolution]

I don't put humanity on a pedestal, and don't follow the herd. You said be careful who you are following. I am in agreement with that statement. I won't replace 'God' with the new God of humanity.

Oh...I see what you are saying. ..you are saying that humans have a new god now. Which is humanity. Right?

Well yes, some do, I never thought of it in those exact words you use. But then, God also said ' love thy neighbor. " I can only assume he meant love your fellow human. But combined with 'thou shalt have no other gods before me,' then it's him first...humans second...right? Or do you think there is another priority before humanity besides god?

[Dalek Prime]

Basically, yes... Sorry. Sometimes I don't express.myself very well.

As a dystheist, I don't trust God. But unfortunately, I also don't trust humanity to shed light for me. So it's a quandary.

[Immanuel Can]

Christians should not change the meaning of God's word just because it makes them feel more righteous. Again, God said, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." If Christians have faith, then please, I would like to see one move the mountain. This is a really good test God gave us to see we if we really have faith or if we just are saying we have faith.

You're wrong, actually...the passage you are quoting is neither a definition of faith, nor is it a test for faith. It's very clearly a hyperbole, a figure of speech. Think about it for a minute, and you'll see why. We surely cannot think that Christ was telling His disciples to give up their present careers and become geographic redecorators instead, can we? We cannot imagine that God cares much about which mountains are here or there, can we? Why would He? What would be the point? And if it were some sort of "faith test," then who would have passed it? Wouldn't the disciples have tried the "test" right away, and discovered instantly they weren't His true disciples?

So unless we're prepared to believe that Christ was interested in landscaping, and that the disciples were simply too stunned to run the test, we'd certainly have to look for another explanation. And in point of fact, one's not far to find: He's not speaking literally there. It's a metaphor.

One question, of course, is "If it's a metaphor, for what is it a metaphor? " And the answer is, this: if a person has faith, things which seem impossible can become possible. That's what seems reasonable to understand from that.

You know, ironically, Christians are sometimes accused of being too "literal" by their opponents. Some critics argue that one of the problems with the way Christians interpret their Bibles is they are too willing to believe exactly what's written. The critics continue, haven't they ever heard of figures of speech? Can't they read a metaphor? Can't they recognize a parable when they see one? And they conclude that if Christians read less literally, then they would be more "open-minded" as a result.

In point of fact, though I've met many Christians, I've actually never met one who did not think that there were metaphors and figures of speech in Scripture. And I've never met one who couldn't recognize at least those stories marked by Scripture specifically as parables, as parables. There are a few instances where there's debate -- is this a figure of speech, or is it literal? -- but all the Christians I've ever known (and I've known tens of thousands, at the very least) know full well that some statements in the Bible are clearly intended as metaphorical.

One of the devices Christ Himself used from time to time was hyperbole -- overstatement -- a common figure of speech in which exaggeration makes a point more strongly. For example, Christ once accused the legalist religious people of His day of "swallowing a camel, and choking on a gnat." (Matt. 23:24). Nobody, but nobody I've ever met -- either on the skeptic side or on the Christian side -- thinks Christ was speaking literally there. There are a few cases like that, where it's just perfectly clear to everyone that He's using a metaphor, a figure of speech...not being literal.

This is very clearly a hyperbole, just like the camel and gnat. And such figures of speech were very common in the language used by Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the door": are we to take from this that He was made out of wood? He said, "I am the way": are we to take from this that He was a road? He said, "I am the light of the world": are we to take from this that He thought He was the Sun? Surely not. They're figures of speech in every case.

And if you suppose otherwise, I'll have to say that not only no Christian I've ever known agrees with you, but the skeptics and critics of the Bible don't believe what you believe either. If you suppose that "faith to move mountains" means God promises us geographic redecorating privileges, well then, quite simply, you're alone on that interpretation. Nobody else thinks you're right.


Again, faith is a very strong word. Let's not dilute it to 'strong evidence'. Faith to God means, "absolute knowledge without evidence."
No, that's what you've defined it as, and denying that is not "diluting" anything. In fact, your definition is simply wrong. Neither the Biblical account nor the vast preponderance of Christians would agree with the definition you are attempting to force upon them.

Why do you think he doesn't come down everyday and show himself? Because, the God of the bible want to know what is in our hearts. If he came down and showed us he was real, we would be scared shit-less and say we believe just out of the sheer fear of what we know he could do to us.

This may be crudely put, but it's actually quite a good insight. I sort of agree with what you say here.

It's when the man loses his wealth and his power and the woman still loves him that you can see she really loves him.

Again, there's something insightful in this. If you want somebody to love you, you always have to allow them the chance not to. If they have no other choice, it's really not love at all...it's just force. I agree.

Again, this is not my definition of faith...it's not k's definition of faith, it's not the 'new atheists' definition of faith. It's only God's definition.
Please show me the passage of Scripture where it says, "faith is absolute knowledge without evidence." Actually, that's ironic: I already know there's no such passage. And with good reason. For in your illustration of the young man who wants to know if a woman loves him, she does not love him for absolutely no reason. If she does, she's simply demented.

First, she must believe he actually exists. And if she did not have that, then what she was expressing would not be love but delusion. Secondly, she must actually know him...his personality, his character, his intentions, his goals, his values, his kindness, his generosity, his faithfulness...and so on. If she does not know him, she cannot, by definition, "love" him. She may be infatuated with some illusion in her own head, but she cannot love him...because loving a person means knowing him. Thirdly, she must have reason to trust Him. If he has betrayed her repeatedly in past, then we would all advise her against any attraction to him. So that also would not be love.

Just as you can only love a person if you a) know for a fact they exist, b) know them personally, and c) have some evidence of who they are as a person, you can only have faith in God if you have REASON to have faith in God, starting with what you know about his character and purposes. And for that, you need evidence. So there's absolutely no way your definition of faith is a good one.

To classify all "religions" as the same really IS dumb...and unscientific. A Wiccan and an Orthodox Jew, or a ISIL Radical and a Mennonite farmer have no more in common ideologically than a Marxist and a follower of Ayn Rand. And nobody's so silly as to group Randians and Marxists together: but for some reason, we think it's okay in the other cases. Any fair-minded observer can see it makes no sense at all.

I don't think atheists are doing this...

Actually, some of them clearly are. For example, consider Christopher Hitchens's subtitle for his most famous book "God is Not Great," which is "Why Religion Poisons Everything." Well, Chris...which religion? Or Richard Dawkins, who says, "Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness." Which one, Richard?

They do this sort of thing all the time: read them, and you'll soon see. It's not hard to find examples. I'm sure I could give you hundreds, had you time.

But I will agree with one thing, atheists who have not been raised with a religious background do speak very naively sometimes about Christianity.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins were raised by religious parents. They're not naive: they are so busy hating "religion" in general and God in specific, that they have lost sight of their pool of evidence. It's that simple.

Now, you are a Christian and believe this....how is it any different from an atheist thinking the same about you?

Sorry...I'm not quite understanding your question here...

Christianity is a man made religion.

You may think so. But I don't.

Of course, atheists can have an opinion on anything they want. God gave them free will.

Well, definitionally, if they want to be Atheists they have to deny God's existence...or else definitionally, they stop being Atheists. And I said they may or may not have an opinion on Christians...I can't get what you didn't understand about that.

Do you 'obey' the son?

Indeed. For He said, "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) I do believe. And this action of believing is specifically identified by Christ as the obedience He requires: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

Now, before we go on with anything, we'd best sort out this "faith" or "belief" thing. Because so long as you are operating under a mistaken view of what it is, it's going to be impossible for you to figure out what's involved in it.

Must stop for the moment. I have to rush off. Back later.

[artisticsolution]

And if you suppose otherwise, I'll have to say that not only no Christian I've ever known agrees with you, but the skeptics and critics of the Bible don't believe what you believe either. If you suppose that "faith to move mountains" means God promises us geographic redecorating privileges, well then, quite simply, you're alone on that interpretation. Nobody else thinks you're right.

Hyperbole or not, the truth of the matter remains the same. And I don't care how many Christians think I'm wrong. The only one that matters to me is God.

Do you believe Moses parted the red sea by himself...or do you believe that with God it was possible? You have to learn to check you math where the bible is concerned. The truth is consistent always with the 10 commandments.

Moses could not have parted the red sea without Faith in God....and we can't move a mountain without faith in God. IF there is a God,do you doubt with him, we could move a mountain.? Tsk tsk ...oh yeah of little faith. More later...

[Immanuel Can]

Hyperbole or not, the truth of the matter remains the same.

Actually, no...unless you believe that people can swallow camels. But neither you nor I believes that.

If a statement is an hyperbole, it is NOT expected to happen in actuality....that's what "overstatement" (hyperbole) means. Whether the "move mountains" statement is literal or only hyperbolical changes absolutely everything about what we can expect to happen.

And I don't care how many Christians think I'm wrong. The only one that matters to me is God.

Well, then, I suppose you'd best ask Him to help you understand that passage; because the interpretation you've got is one nobody else believes, which is pretty good reason to suspect you're not seeing it reasonably. If there were a majority...or a reasonable number of people to agree with you...or even just a few really smart people...then maybe. But that just isn't the case here. And when you're truly alone in your opinion like that, it's usually a good time to check yourself...

The truth is consistent always with the 10 commandments.

"Consistent with?" In what way? You might be right, but I can't tell from the wording here.

Which ones of the Big 10 do you personally practice? Can you even repeat them? Because I'll bet there's a couple you've never kept. Go look at them, and you'll see. Or do you keep all 613 Old Testament Commandments the rabbis claim there are? Do you keep all the New Testament commandments? Do you even know what they are?

I'm guessing, if you're average, you may not know much about any of these: most people who toss those terms around don't. So I'm curious as to why you'd bring them up: for if you don't actually know the 613, or the NT commandments, or even the Big 10, how do you know "truth is consistent with them," as you say?

IF there is a God,do you doubt with him, we could move a mountain.?

No, if God wanted the mountain moved. By definition, the Supreme Being, being the Creator of all things, could move as many mountains as He wished. But why would He wish it? Is there something wrong with where the mountains are at the moment? Is there some reason you know of that God should want to move them elsewhere?

However, since you're still referring to a figure of speech (hyperbole) it's hard to say what point you're making.

[Arising_uk]

Er! I thought the ten commandments not Christianity?

[artisticsolution]

Er! I thought the ten commandments not Christianity?

I am not understanding what you mean? You think the 10 commandments are not part of Christianity?