"I don't like even being around them"

[Cristo Rei]

Not really. I don't get to actually discuss my point of view very much. Most of the Christians I know don't seem to like hearing about it.

Talk to me.
Have u always been agnostic?

 

[bbyrd009]

Like any large group of humans, Christians come in all types. However, it does seem that in the last 10 years or so, the "crazies" have become more prominent. But maybe that's just me.

i have a theory that it is those who are called by My Name that Yah pays attn to, meaning even if they do not rep Him like He might like, since they are saying that they rep Yah, Yah goes with their decisions in the running of the "country," iow as the religion goes, so goes the country? And we are in an Empire in Decline/Decadence right. So i dunno, but seems like they tail with each other pretty much

 

[bbyrd009]

When someone tells me they are atheist, Jewish, or whatever, I say nobody's perfect. Then move on the conversation.

well but isnt that kinda the same attitude forrest?
I mean how would you like hearing "nobody's perfect" after saying you are a "Christian?"

This assumption that "Christian" is the standard, or worse, required somehow is a very bad and Unscriptural perception imo

 

[bbyrd009]

I have never personally met an agnostic person that was hostile towards Christians or anyone

oh theyre out there, tho i guess the "agnostic" part is just a label they have chosen, usually without realizing what it means? The one i have in mind sure talks as if he had plenty of gnossis anyway lol

 

[bbyrd009]

Probably not. It is possibly because his Christian friends are the only ones who will like/overlook his obnoxious ways.

@theophilus @Willie T
hmm, ive been monitoring for any of that, could you provide us a little support for the perspective? Bc "obnoxious" from him i am not finding at all wadr. Me, no prob lol

If yall wanna pretend you didnt see this i understand tho ok

 

[amadeus]

Most certainly. I see it all the time here at CB!
I've seen that sort of thing in the church I grew up in. Typically, after someone left the church they'd still be polite to them in public, but the invites to cookouts and other social events would stop. So it wasn't full-on shunning, but it was close.

"...Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" Acts 10:34

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"But ye have not so learned Christ;
If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph 4:20-24

 

[bbyrd009]

I summed it up here: Is this good for Christianity?

ah well no offense but she didnt ask the Q to get a reply i guess; and she's a Catholic i think? Pot/kettle iow?

 

[Candidus]

Agnostic means "one who does not know," one who is ignorant of what is true. I have always found that a person who applies the moniker to themselves, takes pride in the fact that they are an Ignoramus!

Though one can say that they are "unsure," if they argue passionately from that position they are really no longer "agnostic" but uncommitted "atheist's." Either God exists or He does not. Living and believing in a way that does not reflect that God exists, is unbelief, not some fanciful neutral "middle ground."

 

[bbyrd009]

That makes me wonder what you think of the "ways" represented in the posts by some of the Christians here in this forum. I've seen racism, antisemitism, extreme homophobic bigotry, truly crazy conspiracy theories, and a whole bunch of other things that have surprised me. If my ways are "obnoxious", I have to wonder what you think about those things from your fellow Christians?

wherein the thinking is assumed i guess lol
sheesh

 

[bbyrd009]

Agnostic means "one who does not know." I have always found that a person who applies the moniker to themselves, takes pride in the fact that they are an Ignoramus!

Though one can say that they are "unsure," if they argue passionately from that position they are really no longer "agnostic" but uncommitted "atheist's." Either God exists or He does not. Living and believing in a way that does not reflect that God exists, is unbelief, not some fanciful neutral "middle ground."

i read some deal about how the def has changed through the years, i guess at one time Xtians were becoming known as Gnostics, and Agnostics were also Xtians who just opposed all the supposed "knowledge" or something like that? It was like 30 years ago lol, i kinda forget, but i think the argument is valid for those who insist Yah "exists"
like without having read the definition of "exist" or something maybe, "objective evidence." Iow the assumption that Yah must "exist" to be real?

Either God exists or He does not.

ha well if youre gonna start making factual statements too then ill say i disagree with you there, prove it
lol

 

[Candidus]

i read some deal about how the def has changed through the years, i guess at one time Xtians were becoming known as Gnostics, and Agnostics were also Xtians who just opposed all the supposed "knowledge" or something like that? It was like 30 years ago lol, i kinda forget

Before there was Christianity... (X for a signature was the sign of the Cross), there was Gnosticism. It did not take long for it to infiltrate Christianity as the Epistle of First John was written to address their heresy. As with truth, sometimes the lines cross. I disagree with Roman Catholicism on most of their teaching; yet the lines cross where I agree with their belief of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. But that does not make me a Roman Catholic in the least!

In the Bible we see terms as [gnosko] to Know, enlightenment, the Witness of the Spirit. Differing forms of Gnosticism co-opted parts of Christianity and ran in the Early Centuries parallel to Biblical Christianity. To a Gnostic, anyone that did not agree with them would be in essence an "Agnostic." While one can be an "Agnostic" about nearly anything, a denial of the religion of Gnosticism would be from their perspective; agnostic. We use it mainly today to speak of people who are unsure about the existence of God.

I doubt that genuine Christians thought of themselves as "Agnostic" but for the context of rejecting Gnosticism.

 

[bbyrd009]

Before there was Christianity... (X for a signature was the sign of the Cross), there was Gnosticism. It did not take long for it to infiltrate Christianity as the Epistle of First John was written to address their heresy. As with truth, sometimes the lines cross. In the Bible we see terms as [gnosko] to Know, enlightenment, the Witness of the Spirit. Differing forms of Gnosticism co-opted parts of Christianity and ran in the Early Centuries parallel to Biblical Christianity. To a Gnostic, anyone that did not agree with them would be in essence an "Agnostic." While one can be an "Agnostic" about nearly anything, a denial of the religion of Gnosticism would be from their perspective; agnostic. We use it mainly today to speak of people who are unsure about the existence of God.

I doubt that genuine Christians thought of themselves as "Agnostic" but for the context of rejecting Gnosticism.

that's pretty much where i'm at, although i would not say "unsure" personally, as i am aware that the def of "existence" = "objective evidence," and seems to me that the I AM passages and even the "wind" thing were arguments against trying to shoehorn Yah into mere "existence?"

But being as how there are apparently private interpretations viz the term "exist" i think i am able to say that
"Yah exists, and He does not"

 

[bbyrd009]

"I don't like even being around them"

aw c'mon, Christians arent universally that terrible, are they?
You can do it for two hours a week, cantcha, i mean that's about all theyre ever out anyway?

 

[amadeus]

"I don't like even being around them"

aw c'mon, Christians arent universally that terrible, are they?
You can do it for two hours a week, cantcha, i mean that's about all theyre ever out anyway?

Two hours a week? Some, I believe, even less than that! Many people attend services, where ending it under no circumstances later than 12 noon is essential ,may have spent 2 hours or even a bit more at their places of prayer and worship, have done how much praying and worshipping or even paying attention during that time? Ever watch the watch watchers? I guess they have important fish to fry, such as a football game [to watch or play], a dinner [to prepare or eat], a golf game, or...? So they apparently must keep an closer eye on their watches than on the preacher and never mind God at all. No, it does not apply to everyone.

Are the watchers better than the one who simply say they are [even faithful] members but seldom are actually found in the building during prescribed times. My own family was mostly like that when I was growing up Catholic!

 

[bbyrd009]

Two hours a week? Some, I believe, even less than that! Many people attend services, where ending it under no circumstances later than 12 noon is essential ,may have spent 2 hours or even a bit more at their places of prayer and worship, have done how much praying and worshipping or even paying attention during that time? Ever watch the watch watchers? I guess they have important fish to fry, such as a football game [to watch or play], a dinner [to prepare or eat], a golf game, or...? So they apparently must keep an closer eye on their watches than on the preacher and never mind God at all. No, it does not apply to everyone.

Are the watchers better than the one who simply say they are [even faithful] members but seldom are actually found in the building during prescribed times. My own family was mostly like that when I was growing up Catholic!

ha yeh mine too

 

[lforrest]

well but isnt that kinda the same attitude forrest?
I mean how would you like hearing "nobody's perfect" after saying you are a "Christian?"

This assumption that "Christian" is the standard, or worse, required somehow is a very bad and Unscriptural perception imo

I hold contempt for the pride people place in their social identity. It is a universal jab at that, and I consider it humorous.
One need not be proud to understand that Jesus Christ is the only way to Eternal life, and his Church consists of those whom he has chosen.

 

[bbyrd009]

I hold contempt for the pride people place in their social identity. It is a universal jab at that, and I consider it humorous.
One need not be proud to understand that Jesus Christ is the only way to Eternal life, and his Church consists of those whom he has chosen.

whom He has chosen, or we have chosen tho

and seems like your contempt just did an about-face?

 

[Candidus]

...well if youre gonna start making factual statements too then ill say i disagree with you there, prove it
lol

As a former committed Atheist, I have problems logically with Agnostics... I am not sure if they exist!

It is anecdotal, but in my journey and experience, there was nothing that would convince me until God intervened. This was not rapid or overnight, there was no lightening strike or clap of thunder... but once I was open to the "possibility" of there being a God, I knew that I could not reconcile being in a middle position as an Agnostic; it was logically untenable.

For me, I was convinced; I knew that there was no God. If there was a God, I knew that He/She or "Whatever" had a purpose with mankind as a Creator... and I was sure that that meant that I was not in a very good position!

Not to draw out a complete testimony, but I believe that God has to reveal His existence if someone is determined to defy what we see around us. It is not that we cannot see God in His creation, but that we are unwilling to see it because if He does exist, we are accountable to Him. If God does not exist, there is no such things as right and wrong; just opinion. Oddly, natural law still had some power over me as an Atheist (now that I look back I can see it). I did not take my Atheism totally to its logical end of complete license to do as In pleased, but held to "some" morality. I found Homosexuality to be repulsive, not because it was a "sin," but because it was contrary to nature. Murder was wrong because I would not want to be killed, or anyone I loved to be murdered; that would be "wrong." Though my Atheism said that murder is not wrong in an absolute moral sense; I had an "opinion."

It was very popular 150 years ago to discuss "Natural Theology." I have several books in my collection on the subject. The theme was that God could be proved by nature. If I read them as an Atheist, I would have found a reason to reject the arguments, if I wanted. I would say that it was the Law of First Cause that opened me up to the "possibility" of a Creator. On its own, it would never had brought me to faith, for I had bluffed my way through that objection many times before. When asked where we (people) came from, and I walked it all back to some ameba's in the Primordial Swamp... I was asked something that I was never asked before... "Where did they come from?" The person who presented to me did not give the usual "this proves God exists!" But left me with a gentle question: "Why couldn't it have been God?" That wasn't a challenge to prove God exists, but a challenge to prove to myself that God does not exist.

Not every time you make an argument, quote a Scripture to someone, has God preceded you by reaching out and revealing Himself to them. There is a vast difference. Arguing for the proof of God is usually futile. We do not get educated into believing God as we would be educated into Atheism.

 

[Justadude]

But then again, what if you should meet a Christian who is already is perfect? Would you recognize one if you saw such a one?

I've no idea. It was just an off-hand joke anyways.

 

[Justadude]

If you have read much outside your own threads here you probably have seen that a lot of Christians are like that among themselves.

Certainly. It can be quite entertaining at times to see people who insist they have the truth arguing back and forth over a topic where there's really no objective way to tell who's right. My favorites are the Holy Spirit arguments, where two Christians both claim that the Spirit revealed something to them, even though they're mutually exclusive.

Solomon wrote these words which still apply to unbelievers and to believers. What does it take to open up a person's heart/mind to really listen to what the other guy is saying?

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prob 21:2

What do you believe would be the exceptions, if any, to the first phrase I underlined?

I guess that would depend on what is meant by "way of a man". If it refers to how we live our lives, then I suppose people who are self-loathing would be exceptions.