Dear Christians..

a reply to: NthOther

Yes, I'm slowly creating a new religion

Is this not the height of human arrogance? You are creating a new religion based off your finite knowledge, and just because it doesn't step on anyones toes is supposed to mean it is true?

a reply to: Foderalover

lol You had me there

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Is this not the height of human arrogance? You are creating a new religion based off your finite knowledge, and just because it doesn't step on anyones toes is supposed to mean it is true?

Hold on a minute. You don't know hardly anything about it yet. I am not the point. It is not based on my knowledge. I will have to explain that in depth, and this thread isn't the place to do that.

I was simply noting that I empathized with the OP. "I feel ya, brah." At least on some points. On others I dunno what's he's (or her) talking about.

But anyway...

a reply to: borntowatch

I thought God just wanted a personal relationship, where does this sacrifice of materialism come in to it?

1 John 2:15-17 NIV

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

Message is clearly demanding a sacrifice of the material for the spiritual.

Not my belief, but that sentiment is found throughout the New Testament. Not just of material 'things' but also towards people themselves. You're not to love anyone on the same level you're supposed to love god. That's yet another sacrifice.

Matthew 10:37 NIV

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

a reply to: NthOther

Hold on a minute. You don't know hardly anything about it yet. I am not the point. It is not based on my knowledge. I will have to explain that in depth, and this thread isn't the place to do that.

I might not know anything about you, but its clear by the ideology you produced Your religion as you said would be based off nothing but you and your personal relationship with God. So if what you've learned in your relationship contradicts what I have learned in my relationship are we to accept the contradictions as both being truth? You see my point is you just don't like the idea of stepping on people ideologies, but friend truth is not always something we like.

a reply to: Elementalist

I'm NOT a Christian, NOR was Jesus. But, I like this music:

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

So if what you've learned in your relationship contradicts what I have learned in my relationship are we to accept the contradictions as both being truth?

No. That would make the religion total bulls#. I guess we'll find out.

You see my point is you just don't like the idea of stepping on people ideologies...

I never said anything of the sort. Sorry I brought it up, we're derailing the thread. I just wanted to relay to the OP that I'd been contemplative of many of the same things of late, in a very roundabout manner.

a reply to: NthOther

My point then would be how can your religion be true. Its obviously not the belief that Jesus Christ is God and the through trust in Him and his work on the cross we can have the gift of eternal life in heaven, if that is what I have found to be true. But lets not derail this thread I am open to a conversation if you think I may have the truth your welcome to PM, and I am willing to hear your side.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

My point then would be how can your religion be true. Its obviously not the belief that Jesus Christ is God

It's not an obvious truth Christianity is an objectively truthful religion. Hence the need for faith.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I think we define faith a little differently . There are two definitions. One is complete trust in someone or something. The other is belief without evidence. I use the first. I trust the words of Christ. I don't think its hard to show that we can recreate the original greek and hebrew bible from the manuscripts we have available. So when you hear me say faith. It is me saying I have trust in the words of Jesus of Nazareth.

I would say the it becomes clear to anyone who spends time honestly searching for truth with objectivity rather than what feels nice or sounds nice.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Its obviously not the belief that Jesus Christ is God and the through trust in Him and his work on the cross we can have the gift of eternal life in heaven, if that is what I have found to be true.

Ok. Then don't join the church. I won't invade your country and force you to convert or die or anything like that.



I'm not interested in proving anything to you or controlling you.

a reply to: NthOther

Ok. Then don't join the church. I won't invade your country and force you to convert or die or anything like that.

I can't force you do accept christ lol. Thats an act of will.

I'm not interested in proving anything to you or controlling you.

No, but you have said that you know a truth about reality. If it contradicts with what I have said about Christ. I would ask for you to show me the evidence of your truth and I'll show you mine.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

No, but you have said that you know a truth about reality. If it contradicts with what I have said about Christ. I would ask for you to show me the evidence of your truth and I'll show you mine.

"You show me yours and I'll show you mine" will be discouraged in the church. There's already way too much of that in religion.

a reply to: NthOther

lololollolololl

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Fair enough on the faith bit.

I guess I would say I don't have faith in trusting the truthfulness of the words then.

I would say the it becomes clear to anyone who spends time honestly searching for truth with objectivity rather than what feels nice or sounds nice.

Ironically that's precisely what I would say.

I appreciate you clarifying what faith means to you.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Ironically that's precisely what I would say.

Then it seems one of us has made a philosophical or scientific blunder in our world views.

I guess I would say I don't have faith in trusting the truthfulness of the words then.

Not trying to pick at you but the way I read that you say I don't have enough faith(trust) in trusting the truthfulness of the words. It doesn't really make a lot of sense so I am not sure what your trying to get across. Are you saying that you don't have enough evidence to trust that those words are true?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Then it seems one of us has made a philosophical or scientific blunder in our world views.

Well the Bible contains blatant scientific blunders so that person isn’t me in this regard.

Are you saying that you don't have enough evidence to trust that those words are true?

Correct. Not if they were ever said or not. That they would affirm the metaphysical claims.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Well the Bible contains blatant scientific blunders so that person isn’t me in this regard.

I would respectfully disagree. I have never seen one produced that wasn't spurious application. Meaning the verse doesn't mean what the accusers say it means.

Correct. Not if they were ever said or not. That they would affirm the metaphysical claims.

What kind of historical evidence would you consider as enough convincing enough to confirm that Jesus Christ was indeed God in the flesh?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It usually comes down to whether something is being interpreted literally or allegorically.

If Genesis is to be taken as literal truth then there are serious scientific blunders.

Genesis says the Sun and all stars were made after the Earth was formed.

Genesis says there was fruit-bearing trees on Earth on Day 3. The Day before the Sun and all stars.

Genesis says birds were flying around before all land-based animals.

All of that is directly contrary to our scientific knowledge.

Then you have Noah's Ark, the lifespans of early humans, Jonah and the Whale. All of which have implications very much non-congruent with science. Again, if they are to be interpreted literally and not as metaphor. They appear, just as Genesis does, intended to be literal truths.

What kind of historical evidence would you consider as enough convincing enough to confirm that Jesus Christ was indeed God in the flesh?

The same I would require to believe in the actual existence of Ma'at, Brahmā, or Zeus. I would need a direct experience of that divine being with my senses.

What would be sufficient evidence for you in order to warrant believe in Anubis?

Believing in Jesus' sacrifice is not necessary for anything except for a belief in Christianity's version of salvation. That's all it comes with, belief in a certain version of salvation, nothing more. Jesus blatantly contradicts this line of reasoning on several occasions in the gospels, yet adherents to Jesus' sacrifice cannot and will not see it for fear of going to hell.

The bible calls this reasoning "hardened hearts". They are thoroughly dug in and refuse to seek in any way. They have their answer and it will never change.