Assuming that Christ is the authority on what constitutes a Christian, you cannot both be a Christian and condemn anyone to hell.
Tracer
Thank you. Your question is much clearer now, and is of great interest to me personally because it calls to mind the verse that I translated only 11 verses before my conversion epiphany. Again considering Jesus to be the Authority on the matter, I’ll give you what He said. Speaking to the Pharisees who were taunting Him, Jesus said, “He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47
Isn’t that interesting? When I first saw the verse, I thought ‘this is one bold son of a bitch’. Maybe twenty minutes later, I heard His voice and passed from eternal death to eternal life.
To follow-up on my last post: The pope in question was Pope Abram the 62nd pope in the lineage of St. Mark. He became pope in 968 A.D. El Mo’az was an open-minded sultan who allowed open religious debates in his palace. It was after a debate between Bishop Saweires of Ashmun and a Jew named Moses, a friend of the sultan’s vizier. The Bishop embarrassed Moses using one verse from the Bible so Moses went to the vizier to turn the table on the Christians. That is the intro to my last post.
************
Apparently this thread has deviated from the OP. Now, the Christians on the Board are defending themselves against the (often heard) accusation that they blindly believe in God, they have no historical evidence to back them up, and they believe in “any old idea that comes along.”
First, let me say that it is not my intention to say that non-Christians are foolish or sinners. I myself am a sinner and I quite often behave foolishly. But the accusations are coming from the other side of the table. Christians (not just here but all over the world) are accused of being ignorant and un-educated. There is a difference between people who call themselves Christians (there are 2 billion) and those who truly believe in Jesus. Most if not all true Christians came to Christ because He revealed Himself to us in a unique way. We also used a good amount of reason and rationalization to come to our conclusions. I was raised in a Christian church but I did not truly come to Christ until recently. I also had some serious doubts about Christianity after I took a comparative religion class where the professor made it a point to disprove Christianity. I even remember telling a friend of mine “I am having serious doubts about Christianity.” I did not and other Christians did not come to Christ simply because our parents told us to. They may have introduced us to Christianity but we had to make the decision on our own.
Most, if not all, Christian skeptics do not believe in the reliability or divinity of the Bible. This is nothing new. For a long time, critics of the Bible did not know who the Hittites or the Babylonians were. There was no evidence of those cultures existing thus, the logic goes, the Bible is incorrect. I hope no one still thinks those cultures didn’t exist. Historical evidence supported the Bible.
The divinity of the Bible is proved through the prophecies, which constitute about a third of the Bible. Look at the prophecy against Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-21); against Gaza and Ashkelon (Amos 1:8; Jer. 47:5; Zeph. 2:4, 6, 7); against Petra and Edom (Isa. 34:6-15; Jer. 49:17, 18; Eze. 25:13, 14 and 35:5-7); against Thebes and Memphis (Eze. 30:13-15); and the one on how Jerusalem would enlarge (Jer. 31:38-40). This last one you will need a map of Jerusalem to understand. All these prophecies were fulfilled thousands of years after they were written. If it were mere men who wrote these prophecies then we would have to say that the authors of the Bible were extremely lucky. If they were divinely inspired, as we contend, then the Bible makes much more sense. There is not one historian or scientist who can say that these prophecies were post-dated (too long between prophecy and fulfillment) or that they were not fulfilled. To me, someone claiming that these were all coincidental is exposing himself to be someone who does not want to believe the truth despite the evidence.
I, thus, get offended when someone tells me that Christians are following “any old idea.” God used these prophecies to “prove” Himself so-to-speak. Prayer is not where the proof of God’s existence is found. It is where God’s existence and greatness is confirmed in your heart. No Christian should make the claim that faith replaces the “evidence.” If they do they are mistaken. Faith results from evidence.
Well, that clears that up some. But I didn’t say they were condemning anybody, just stating what they perceived as a cold, hard fact–based upon what their religion told them.
Ok, I’m confused again. I thought it was temporary life until you “died”–in the medical sense–and then eternal life from there on in. Or is it eternal life once you start listening to God? And if it is, does eternal life go away if you stop listening to god, despite being “eternal”?
>EXAMINE SPIRIT
You see nothing special about the virtue of being essentially Spirit.
>GET SPIRIT
The virtue of being essentially Spirit is too big for you to lift.
>N
You can’t go that way.
>W
You are in an open forest by deep Valley.
There is an old lantern discarded nearby.
>GET LANTERN
Lantern: taken.
>I
You are carrying the following:
set of keys
brass lantern
glass bottle
water in bottle
>ENTER VALLEY
The trees block your way.
>E
You are in an eternal state by virtue of being essentially Spirit.
Prayers work (the ones where asking of forgiveness is involved and giving thanks). The ones were you ask for like a million bucks or new automobile etc. don’t really work. If you actually need something from God like forgiveness for sins or in need of something like food or help, or you are giving thanks for something, then they do work.
Every time somebody prays for food when they’re in need of it will have their prayer work? So if somebody prays for food and then starves to death – which, I can guarantee you, has happened many many times over the last couple of millennia – then their prayer still worked?
That’s the lousiest definition of a prayer “working” I’ve heard yet.
Ah, you wonderful atheists! How I love you! You do not see the needle move on your “prayer meter” and so you go, “Hey, this doesn’t work!”
Why is it that, in matters of cosmology or evolution, you have no problem in the intellectual dichotomy between science and faith? You (at least most of you) will allow that a person can believe that evolution is a fact while simultaneously believing that God exists. But come the other way around, you (at least some of you) will not allow that a person may believe that God exists (and therefore ipso facto prayer “works”) while simultaneously believing that the universe is amoral and the laws of physics, without intervention, hold.
Well, I expected nothing more from Libertarian than a runaround, and that’s exactly what he gave me. Lib, unless you are claiming to know what your god does and does not hear through direct 1st hand knowledge you have avoided answering my question. Would you please try to give an honest answer to my sincere question?
Come again? Ipso facto, “prayer works” if God exists? That’s simply not true. God can exist quite happily while ignoring prayer. God can exist and be INCAPABLE of answering prayers.
You know, you might find it surprising that I feel very much that I live in an area where Christianity is nearly non-existant… I live in Central England. That’s right, England… the British Isles… and it is largely non-Christian.
Let me try to explain. I was brought up in a working-class area where few people went to church. Church seemed to be more for the middle and upperclasses. If anyone in my part of town was asked what their religion was, there response would be… Church of England, but that was more by default. In other words, you weren’t anything else so you must be C of E.
We got baptised in church, married in church and buried in church. Apart from those ‘special’ visits, church-going was rare.
When you did visit a church it was very remote in many senses… almost alien. You always felt unwelcome or that you were somehow not worthy.
My view is that the Anglican Church is still rather distanced from its parishioners and so they increasingly don’t attend. Church seems to be about doctrine, process, format, procedure. It uses a language that the people don’t understand for much of the time. It is about religion.
Christianity is not the same thing at all. Christianity is about me and my personal relationship with my saviour. It is about love and mutual committment. It is about coming home to my father… the prodigal son.
Sure I go to a Church… to worship my father, to pray to him, to be with him sand to be with other Christians. My Church is not the building but the body of Christ and his people.
In Britain, there are a large number of religious people who go to churches… just like the building that you rightly observe, my Dad recognises. However, there are far fewer Christians.
If he has rejected anything, it’s what he thinks Christianity is… the Anglican Church! I contest that he hasn’t made a choice in the sense that what he has rejected isn’t Christianity… it’s religion!
You are absolutely right about one thing… my father is not an ignoramous. He spent most of his working life driving lorries (trucks) for a living. The war got in the way of a good education. Nevertheless, he is a warm and loving man who has not yet met the Lord Jesus for himself. My prayer is that he does and then he can truly decide for himself.
This might sound whacky (but here goes anyway)… I’ve not met a single person yet who has met the Lord Jesus… truly met him… and then rejected him. If you’re not sure what I mean then the chances are you haven’t met him.
On the other hand, I have met lots of people who’ve rejected religion believing it to be Christianity. Many are church-goers who now stay away from their religion and its rituals. Others are simply people who have rejected what they misguidedly believe Jesus Christ stands for.
I believe sincerely that when my father meets the Lord, he will know the Lord instantly and he will accept him (as a free choice) into his life and be saved.
The problem with this statement is that your assumption colors all of your experiences, much as it does with prayer. By assuming that NOBODY can meet Jesus and reject him, you then go on to conclude that anyone who HAS rejected him has not met him.
In the same way, you assume that any prayer that is not granted specifically by God in the way that you, in your human selfishness would like it to be, has been answered with a “No.” You have gone into this with the preconcieved conclusion that God will answer your prayer, so when it is not granted, you assume that he has indeed answered with a denial.
When you define God as someone who answers all prayers, and define meeting Jesus as never rejecting him, then of COURSE God will seem to answer every prayer, and everyone who meets Jesus will never reject him. This is neccessitated by your own definitions. Your own definitions, however, are not always correct, as Libertarian has illustrated so clearly throughout this thread.
Did I say that? Just re-reading my statement above, I think what I said was that I’ve not met anyone who has truly met the Lord and then rejected him. That’s my personal experience. I haven’t assumed anything.
Again, I can’t find where I said this… are you sure it was my thread that you meant to answer?
It’s been a long day and maybe it’s time for me to go home.
Well, because “works” carries the connotation, “Has a demonstrable effect”. If I say, “This carpet foam works in getting out stains”, and you used it, you’d expect it to have an effect on stains. If it didn’t, you’d say, “This carpet foam doesn’t work”. So, my question is, if you say “Prayers work”, first, what do they work on, and secondly, how can that statement be falsified? Under what circumstances would it be possible to disprove the statement?
I’ve been half-heartedly keeping up on this thread, and I must say it has been going according to blueprint.
Christian: Asks a question which must assume Christian beliefs to be true in order to be answered.
Christian #2: Answers the question as best he can, assuming the same Christian beliefs.
Non-Christian: Points out that he does not hold Christian beliefs true so the original question is moot.
Christians in General: Argues vehemently that they are right and will whip out every argument that has already been used here (circular or not) to prove their point.
Non-Christians in General: Argues vehemently that they are right and will whip out every argument that has already been used here (circular or not) to prove their point.
Thread breaks down into a “Is so - Is not” argument.
It’s not that I think the OP had any ulterior motives in asking the question, but I do think it was misplaced. The OP assumes Christian beliefs to be true. On this board, at the very least, those beliefs are debated daily. So if the OP was looking for a discussion of Christian “how-to’s” he’s in the wrong place.
Or the OP was mis-worded … it probably should have been, “Does prayer (as laid out in the Bible) exist. Or for that matter, let’s argue over whether or not Christianity is the one true religion or just a load of mumbo jumbo.”
So, being a Non-Christian, I guess I have to jump on the side of “Stop telling my I’m wrong for not following your religion.” If I were a Christian I’m sure I’d believe in prayer right down the party line, but since I’m not, I don’t. It’s really that simple.
Ahh, another word redefined for the benefit of a religious argument. What do we have so far - life, death, prayer, meditation, Christianity… am I leaving anything out?
You’re forgetting their are different factions of Christianity! I too believe that Christianity is about me and my personal relationship with God, and I’m Lutheran. However, it seems in other denominations, like the Catholics, you don’t have as much of a direct connection to God. You have to pray to a priest and then he does the praying for you…or something like that. Anyways, I hope you get the idea. Definitions are going to be different between different Christians. The key is you have to find the denomination that works for you and your beliefs. For me, religion is a personal thing, I have a 1 on 1 relationship with God and that’s what works for me. If it strenghtens your faith to do 20 Hail Mary’s, then that’s what works for you. It doesn’t make me wrong or you wrong.
If we’re going to let scientists define words like “thermodynamics,” “evolution,” “selection,” “universe,” and so forth, shouldn’t we let the religious or the theistic define words like “prayer,” “meditation,” and “Christianity”? Do you want “Creation Scientists” like Kent Hovind defining words like “evolution”?
It is absolutely commonplace for disciplines like philosophy, theology, mathematics, and science to use entirely ordinary words in very specialized ways with meanings that are different from their ordinary meanings. Not to mention the fact that even common words themselves, like “believe” and “name” have changed meaning significantly in two-thousand years.
