InesQor,

I have always held that an atheist is one who doesnt believe. Once that qualification is met, such a person is an atheist (and agnostics so called, qualify as atheists). It is not essential that the person must have a positive belief in the none existence of God.

I see no compelling reason for God but I leave room that there maybe one since I cannot state otherwise with certainty.

There are some Gods I reject outrightly. All Gods who have even a single attribute ascribed to them (except for the attribute of existence) must necessarily be false/non existent in my thinking.

My reason for this is that no one knows but we can deduce. You will note that all attributes of God are human descriptions; loving, powerful, good, bad, kind, vengeful, jealous, intelligent and even, existence itself. We give whatever God we choose human attributes as makes sense within our own particular experience. These are things that we take for granted and usually without consideration as a result of indoctrination.

Is the world evidence of God or evidence of itself? To most, it is evidence of God. To a few, it is evidence of itself primarily.

So yes, maybe an all knowing ball of energy or even a grey haired floating man in the sky did create all that is, but we cannot know and I cannot believe that. People just intuit, and convince themselves, then convince others then deduce what this God likes and doesnt like and how to please it and next, you have a standard religion.

The only God I can "allow" to exist is one whos sole attribute is existence (at least at a point). I wouldnt even give it the attribute of power unless that power can be used deliberately. Pretty much like I wouldnt call a completely paralyzed person powerful even though he may inadvertently produce physical effects occasionally.

The whole point is that we do not know. We can only speculate using our everyday experiences as tools to intuit. There is nothing to show that nature must follow our fantasies. It can be nice when we argue the merits and demerits of a particular worldview but not so nice when we force same worldviews on others or preach them dogmatically.

We dont know for sure and we may never know for sure.

As such, I advance no position, I merely ask for proof.

Thanks for the contribution, jayriginal!

But would you say 'belief' / 'disbelief' in God is that discrete, that you can deem an atheist as one who does not believe in God's existence? I think atheists have varying extents of disbelief, do you think this matters in the definition?

My point is, even Theists sometimes have experiences that make them disbelieve God's existence, howbeit for a short period of time. It is said that doubt is an integral aspect of faith. I like to say is like friction in a system, apparently undesirable but in the right quantity it is required for any motion in the first case.

InesQor: Thanks for the contribution, jayriginal!

But would you say 'belief' / 'disbelief' in God is that discrete, that you can deem an atheist as one who does not believe in God's existence? I think atheists have varying extents of disbelief, do you think this matters in the definition?

My point is, even Theists sometimes have experiences that make them disbelieve God's existence, howbeit for a short period of time. It is said that doubt is an integral aspect of faith. I like to say is like friction in a system, apparently undesirable but in the right quantity it is required for any motion in the first case.

Thought provoking. You bring up a good point.

I think the appropriate word to use in case of theists who have certain experiences is doubt (rather than disbelief). Certainly, the effect is the same no matter which word is used but I think the "word" doubt offers more clarity in the circumstance. The reason is that I can say I doubt the existence of God personally but I think its easy to be misled by that. I think the word "doubt" implies a transitional point. It either resolves back to re-belief or hardens into disbelief (oh boy english nor easy oh).

I see your point. Someone who "doubts" can not be said to believe in the real sense of the word. I hope my paragraph above covers it. If so, I will like to amend by saying that a "doubter" cannot be strictly called an atheist. Lets say such a person is re-evaluating and must resolve. That much is clear. There must be a resolution. It wouldnt do good to say, "You know what, I cant decide either way so I will remain neutral until I can decide". At such a point such a person will probably say he or she is an Agnostic but such a person is really an atheist.

So yes there are different levels of disbelief but I think they are mostly irrelevant to the definition of atheism. It wouldnt matter if I state positively that there is no God or if I simply say I dont believe, I am an atheist.
The only exceptions I think are the "doubters" who are in transition and must either go forward or go back. Theres no sitting on the fence cos that takes them in one direction only.

jayriginal: InesQor,

I have always held that an atheist is one who doesnt believe. Once that qualification is met, such a person is an atheist (and agnostics so called, qualify as atheists). It is not essential that the person must have a positive belief in the none existence of God.

I see no compelling reason for God but I leave room that there maybe one since I cannot state otherwise with certainty.

There are some Gods I reject outrightly. All Gods who have even a single attribute ascribed to them (except for the attribute of existence) must necessarily be false/non existent in my thinking.

My reason for this is that no one knows but we can deduce. You will note that all attributes of God are human descriptions; loving, powerful, good, bad, kind, vengeful, jealous, intelligent and even, existence itself. We give whatever God we choose human attributes as makes sense within our own particular experience. These are things that we take for granted and usually without consideration as a result of indoctrination.

Is the world evidence of God or evidence of itself? To most, it is evidence of God. To a few, it is evidence of itself primarily.

So yes, maybe an all knowing ball of energy or even a grey haired floating man in the sky did create all that is, but we cannot know and I cannot believe that. People just intuit, and convince themselves, then convince others then deduce what this God likes and doesnt like and how to please it and next, you have a standard religion.

The only God I can "allow" to exist is one whos sole attribute is existence (at least at a point). I wouldnt even give it the attribute of power unless that power can be used deliberately. Pretty much like I wouldnt call a completely paralyzed person powerful even though he may inadvertently produce physical effects occasionally.

The whole point is that we do not know. We can only speculate using our everyday experiences as tools to intuit. There is nothing to show that nature must follow our fantasies. It can be nice when we argue the merits and demerits of a particular worldview but not so nice when we force same worldviews on others or preach them dogmatically.

We dont know for sure and we may never know for sure.

As such, I advance no position, I merely ask for proof.

What sort of proof might you be asking for. I speak as a christian and it seems to me that everyone who criticizes the christian doctrine, these criticisms are for things that are not christian. They seem to require a proof of claims that were never made(nor attributed to) by this christian God or his doctrine. Bottom line, no body understands this God, else they'd be asking relevant questions of him/his doctrines.

jayriginal: Err, Uyi, you sound less like someone seeking than someone confused (no offence intended).

Point of order, if someone sticks to his guns it doesnt mean the person is close minded. A person is close minded if he sticks to his position even when he has been shown the weakness of that position. Particularly so, if he rejects a contrary position outright without due consideration.

I see no reason why you should jump from islam to paganism to flower worship etc. If you are looking for God, look within.

Your confusion (as I call it) has led to a really wild fluctuation and its hard to take you very seriously. One minute you are insulting people over evolution, the next you are accepting it. One minute you are a christian, then you are a deist then an atheist. Its dizzying. I hope next you are not going to do another "I have renounced atheism thread".

By your arguments before now and your declaring yourself atheist, I should be correct when I say that you currently believe there is no God. Im sure this is not true though (even if you say it is). Anyway moving on . . .

Seeking doesnt necessarily mean trying everything on the menu. Doing that can cause a lot of sh1t.

Again, none of this is meant to insult and I hope you dont take it that way.

in the path of seeking there is no confusion, everything that a seeker follow is as it should be.a seeker should not be afraid to satisfy his curiosity, infact he has to be open-minded to all cos in the end nothing matter at all..
seeking means trying it all (in whatever way ur mind pointed u too..one thing i have come to know is that a true seeker can never get lost) and we all take different path, different path that might have been condition by how we were born, the situations our mothers were during pregnancies (some were happy throughout the 9 months, some were happy for some months and some were sad all through)... a seeker need to get to a point where he realizes there is really no point to be made and he can only know this after trying to make all the points

jayriginal: Err, Uyi, you sound less like someone seeking than someone confused (no offence intended).

Point of order, if someone sticks to his guns it doesnt mean the person is close minded. A person is close minded if he sticks to his position even when he has been shown the weakness of that position. Particularly so, if he rejects a contrary position outright without due consideration.

I see no reason why you should jump from islam to paganism to flower worship etc. If you are looking for God, look within.

Your confusion (as I call it) has led to a really wild fluctuation and its hard to take you very seriously. One minute you are insulting people over evolution, the next you are accepting it. One minute you are a christian, then you are a deist then an atheist. Its dizzying. I hope next you are not going to do another "I have renounced atheism thread".

By your arguments before now and your declaring yourself atheist, I should be correct when I say that you currently believe there is no God. Im sure this is not true though (even if you say it is). Anyway moving on . . .

Seeking doesnt necessarily mean trying everything on the menu. Doing that can cause a lot of sh1t.

Again, none of this is meant to insult and I hope you dont take it that way.

in the path of seeking there is no confusion, everything that a seeker follow is as it should be.a seeker should not be afraid to satisfy his curiosity, infact he has to be open-minded to all cos in the end nothing matter at all..
seeking means trying it all (in whatever way ur mind pointed u too..one thing i have come to know is that a true seeker can never get lost) and we all take different path, different path that might have been condition by how we were born, the situations our mothers were during pregnancies (some were happy throughout the 9 months, some were happy for some months and some were sad all through)... a seeker need to get to a point where he realizes there is really no point to be made and he can only know this after trying to make all the points

InesQor: Nice one

@jayriginal & Uyi Iredia
Sometimes I say I toyed with atheism briefly but sometimes I wonder if that's really true because in retrospect it seems what really happened was that my level of doubt got intensely strong. I am recently convinced that the farthest extents I've ever been are Christian (new creation) fundie to simply Theist to Agnostic. I'm currently somewhere between the first 2 but much closer to Theist, almost overlapping it I'd say.

This is one question I ponder on, that makes me accept such classifications as Dawkin's scale: When exactly do you say someone "becomes" Atheist? What if his/her doubt only became so strong, stronger than was ever experienced?

true journey to enlightenment actually start when suddenly found out that we dont belongs to any group of religion while still not denying them.
i have almost toyed with all religions that i can get my hands on, i have read tons of books but i have recently found out is that there is rili no answer anywhere cos there is actually no answer. all the books i have read are almost saying the same thing (almost all religious books are saying the same thing in different ways)... i have realised that i just need to do is just to observe while doing nothing

InesQor: Based on classifications in the OP and my daily experiences I think I'm still in the second level of sleep. I have about no care for objects and trivial issues of life, and I thrive on art, science and ideas. But sometimes this gets the better of me in my walk of Love, as I can tend to be harsh towards those who just can't seem to see life beyond objects.

the truth is there is no level of sleep (Buddha only use those analogy to see how seekers will react and behave, he used it to create an illusion that seekers need to be freed from).. Buddha expect a seeker must be able to look beyound those levels and realize that its an attempt to create more illusion

InesQor: @okeyxyz:


Salvation of the ego: does this mean preservation or protection of the ego? Can you expatiate on this please?

most times i marveled at how those ancient masters were able to conceal so much in there little words, sometimes saying things without actually saying anything in an attempt to brng us to reality...

ego cannot be destroyed thats why jesus said salvation of the ego which also means surrendering to the ego in a way..it is in surrender that we conquer. ego is an intrinsic part of human and denying it is like denying the body and no one become enlightened denying the body (the body is a with a purpose and that purpose must be utilized)....

Jesus=Salvation
Muhammed =Surrender
Buddha = Enlightement the end of suffering
Lao Tzu = Desire is bondage

okeyxyz:

What sort of proof might you be asking for. I speak as a christian and it seems to me that everyone who criticizes the christian doctrine, these criticisms are for things that are not christian. They seem to require a proof of claims that were never made(nor attributed to) by this christian God or his doctrine. Bottom line, no body understands this God, else they'd be asking relevant questions of him/his doctrines.

Oh claims are made.

Is it not a claim of christianity that I will go to hell if I do not accept Jesus as my lord and saviour?

Lets start with that.

beejaay:

in the path of seeking there is no confusion, everything that a seeker follow is as it should be.a seeker should not be afraid to satisfy his curiosity, infact he has to be open-minded to all cos in the end nothing matter at all..
seeking means trying it all (in whatever way ur mind pointed u too..one thing i have come to know is that a true seeker can never get lost) and we all take different path, different path that might have been condition by how we were born, the situations our mothers were during pregnancies (some were happy throughout the 9 months, some were happy for some months and some were sad all through)... a seeker need to get to a point where he realizes there is really no point to be made and he can only know this after trying to make all the points

The best kind of search comes from within. I didnt have to dabble in this and that to arrive where I am. Practically all the reading I have done was done after I had finished my introspection. I read to learn alternatives to the doctrines I was brought up with and because of the mindset I had and still have, I read and question. Its the reason I usually decline to advance any position even if scientific. I digress. . .

I stand by what I wrote to Uyi. Its not necessary to try out everything on the menu and even if you should do so, at least complete your journey first.

jayriginal:

The best kind of search comes from within. I didnt have to dabble in this and that to arrive where I am. Practically all the reading I have done was done after I had finished my introspection. I read to learn alternatives to the doctrines I was brought up with and because of the mindset I had and still have, I read and question. Its the reason I usually decline to advance any position even if scientific. I digress. . .

I stand by what I wrote to Uyi. Its not necessary to try out everything on the menu and even if you should do so, at least complete your journey first.

am not saying what u said was wrong (who am i to even say something like that), i was only bringing in another perspective (frankly speaking i dont subscribe to the right/wrong idea..to me nothing is wrong and nothing right, everything is just as it is).. i was only saying that a seeking mind should not stop his wandering mind because it is in wandering that we become whole..

beejaay:
am not saying what u said was wrong (who am i to even say something like that), i was only bringing in another perspective (frankly speaking i dont subscribe to the right/wrong idea..to me nothing is wrong and nothing right, everything is just as it is).. i was only saying that a seeking mind should not stop his wandering mind because it is in wandering that we become whole..

Hey man.... This thread was opened specifically for you....https://www.nairaland.com/1475169/madness-doing-morally-free-mental

FOLYKAZE:

Hey man.... This thread was opened specifically for you....https://www.nairaland.com/1475169/madness-doing-morally-free-mental

and why did u think the thread is for me bros?? am willing to listen and learn

.

jayriginal:

Oh claims are made.

Is it not a claim of christianity that I will go to hell if I do not accept Jesus as my lord and saviour?

Lets start with that.

You are not a christian. There is no where in the doctrines where non-christians are threatened with hell.

okeyxyz:

You are not a christian. There is no where in the doctrines where non-christians are threatened with hell.

Ok.

There is no where in the doctrines that amala and ewedu should be consumed

jayriginal:

Ok.

There is no where in the doctrines that amala and ewedu should be consumed

Using humor to cover your failed argument??

I ask you again: Can you offer a valid critique or opposition to any true christian doctrines or claims?? I'm guessing no, so you sneak away with a humor jab

beejaay:
am not saying what u said was wrong (who am i to even say something like that), i was only bringing in another perspective (frankly speaking i dont subscribe to the right/wrong idea..to me nothing is wrong and nothing right, everything is just as it is).. i was only saying that a seeking mind should not stop his wandering mind because it is in wandering that we become whole..

Ok boss.

okeyxyz:

Using humor to cover your failed argument??

I ask you again: Can you offer a valid critique or opposition to any true christian doctrines or claims?? I'm guessing no, so you sneak away with a humor jab

Ah, no. Not at all. You dont even seem to have read what I wrote neither did you get the implication of my last post.

For you to say that christianity does not say non believers goes to hell without qualification tells me that arguing with you will be pointless.

Your last sentence validates me further. For one, I spoke of merely asking for proof. It was that part that you took issues with and you said this

okeyxyz:

What sort of proof might you be asking for. I speak as a christian and it seems to me that everyone who criticizes the christian doctrine, these criticisms are for things that are not christian. They seem to require a proof of claims that were never made(nor attributed to) by this christian God or his doctrine. Bottom line, no body understands this God, else they'd be asking relevant questions of him/his doctrines.

And I stated a claim which you denied. Im very content to leave it at that. To do otherwise will involve loads of typing which I am not ready for especially given your response. My response is appropriate considering the unseriousness of yours. I dont even need to reference the bible for this one. However let me indulge you a little.

I hope I will not be required to explain the following to you:

Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Now again, flowing from your earlier (disappointing) response, nowhere is it written in the bible to eat starch and banga soup. Think about it.


No be everything them dey tell person.


PS:
If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

It seems someone ran away.

^^^

Lol

.

jayriginal:

Ah, no. Not at all. You dont even seem to have read what I wrote neither did you get the implication of my last post.

For you to say that christianity does not say non believers goes to hell without qualification tells me that arguing with you will be pointless.

Your last sentence validates me further. For one, I spoke of merely asking for proof. It was that part that you took issues with and you said this



And I stated a claim which you denied. Im very content to leave it at that. To do otherwise will involve loads of typing which I am not ready for especially given your response. My response is appropriate considering the unseriousness of yours. I dont even need to reference the bible for this one. However let me indulge you a little.

I hope I will not be required to explain the following to you:

Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Now again, flowing from your earlier (disappointing) response, nowhere is it written in the bible to eat starch and banga soup. Think about it.


No be everything them dey tell person.


PS:
If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

This is just beneath me and is the reason I ignored this post in the first place. But as the thread has been resurrected and I'm in a good mood. So this is my challenge to you: If you want to engage in a debate then just declare your readiness to exchange and keep your opponent ready. But your writing above is unimpressive and boring. You first start off by saying it would be needless repetition and waste of time to engage me, then suddenly turn against your statement by shooting off some arguments and challenges towards me. It's like somebody confronting you for a fight and you say: you don't want to fight, you don't want no trouble, but at the same time you are throwing jabs, uppercuts and hooks. it's just unsportsmanly and cowardly.

So bros, choose a position and stick to it, then I'd learn to take you serious.

okeyxyz:

This is just beneath me and is the reason I ignored this post in the first place. But as the thread has been resurrected and I'm in a good mood. So this is my challenge to you: If you want to engage in a debate then just declare your readiness to exchange and keep your opponent ready. But your writing above is unimpressive and boring. You first start off by saying it would be needless repetition and waste of time to engage me, then suddenly turn against your statement by shooting off some arguments and challenges towards me. It's like somebody confronting you for a fight and you say: you don't want to fight, you don't want no trouble, but at the same time you are throwing jabs, uppercuts and hooks. it's just unsportsmanly and cowardly.

So bros, choose a position and stick to it, then I'd learn to take you serious.

Read all my responses to you CAREFULLY!


Oh and a better analogy is that I am fending of your attacks effortlessly whilst warning you that you dont want to go there.

okeyxyz:

You are not a christian. There is no where in the doctrines where non-christians are threatened with hell.

highyo: I want you all to know that, you can deceive human but you cannot deceive God. The Lord never makes a mistake when warning us to be contended with whatsoever he has given to us. Then why can’t you leave your natural hair, you have being hearing different warning from different testimonies concerning the use of rubber thread, then why can’t you sit on your own and ask yourself these questions,
what if what they are saying concerning rubber tread leading people to hell, what if what they are saying were true?
What if I appear in the great white judgment throne and the lord said I cannot enter through the gate because the natural hair he gave to me has being defiles with satanic devices? And anything defiles cannot enter (Rev21:27)

What if satan appear and tell me that thread you add to your hair belong to me, (Ezk7:19) so you belong to me?

Many will try to enter through the gate but will not be able to (Luke 13:24) that is the Born-again Christians
There is nothing like low quality attachment or High quality attachment which some born-again Christians believe. The both were made with the same rubber. but the same condemnation awaits the users of both. Normal attachment was made from ordinary rubber, and was attached to your hair, so also the rubber thread was also made from rubber and attached to your hair, the same judgment await you.

it was only made with rubber, but the demonic covenant attached to it user is, whosoever make use of it, her appearance before God will be like the appearance of Medusa, a woman with snake hair

Many born-again will end up in hell because of ordinary thread. Be careful satan still hunt you, he never rest
WHOSOEVER MAKES USE OF ANY FORM OF ATTACHMENT, YOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE GOD IS LIKE MEDUSA, BELIEVE OR NOT I DON’T CARE
Ie, in the spiritual realm you are putting on a snake

references
(Funmilayo a former Satanist)
(Ubani Kingsley Testimony)
(Linda Testimony)
( The Bible)

https://www.nairaland.com/1518301/ordinary-rubber-thread-may-lead#19551857

highyo: They can be Identified with their lips. Normally after a witch has finish sucking blood, their lips are always stain with blood
Lev17:14 “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood;
After drinking the blood of a fellow human being at night, they love the blood to remain on their lips, then they will share the remaining blood among other women in order to initiate them, and giving them a new name, lipstick
believe it or not you are painting your lips with human blood, and you are a blood sucking demon

Another method in which you can Identify them is their finger. after they killed their victim, they tried to share the meat among themselves and the blood always stain their finger.
whenever you see a woman painting her finger, should be address as a witch

Their Eyes is another method in which you can use to identify them, whenever they gather together, their eyes are always full of evil. they love it that way but it can only be done by night, they wish to continue keeping the face during the day, so they fix eye lid and cat eye. any woman attaching eyelid should be address as a witch

NO WONDER 21CENTURY WOMEN ARE ALWAYS FULL OF PRIDE

Another way to Identify them is their hair, any woman making use of an attachment should be address as a witch sent from the marine kingdom. they can never be satisfied with their hair, they will always want it to be longer by attaching more hair to it. moreover they will love to expose their breast also, that is their nature anyway, they have being possessed by the marine spirit, I wonder why are this kind of things find most in the church of God
Always want to make their self a stumbling stone for true children of God

https://www.nairaland.com/1518424/pictures-show-some-best-way

I guess this genius is not a christian either (because I suspect that even you dont agree with this).

Plus those that believe in texting demons arent christians either (or are they?).

Hopefully the point is made.

^^^^
WTF!!!! What is this How does the quotes(never mind that the guy is almost an 1d1ot..) above beat or counter my claim that non-christians are are not threatened with hell in christian doctrine?? That you even summon his quotes jokes as your argument speaks a lot about your own level understanding. Perhaps you should re-introduce yourself to me, because I'd assumed you could make a smart argument. I don't even read that guy's posts, his interpretations are always silly to say the least. i'm guessing he's a 13-year old boy because that's the only way one could hold such kind of religious beliefs.

okeyxyz: ^^^^
WTF!!!! What is this How does the quotes(never mind that the guy is almost an 1d1ot..) above beat or counter my claim that non-christians are are not threatened with hell in christian doctrine?? That you even summon his quotes jokes as your argument speaks a lot about your own level understanding. Perhaps you should re-introduce yourself to me, because I'd assumed you could make a smart argument. I don't even read that guy's posts, his interpretations are always silly to say the least. i'm guessing he's a 13-year old boy because that's the only way one could hold such kind of religious beliefs.

^^^

Lol. Calm down. Dont bust a blood vessel.

The point you seem to be missing and which I had tried to subtly pass across to you is that people hold all kinds of differing beliefs, even among christians.

For instance, there are christians who insist on tithing and christians who dont. Christians who believe in the trinity and christians who dont. Christians who believe their denominations are the truth and christians who dont.

Coming back home, there are christians who believe in hell and christians who dont.

Now, go back again and read my replies to you. Maybe you will see the light.

Perhaps I should elucidate a bit further.

You dismissing me as a non-christian was wrong. Furthermore you stated that christianity doesnt make any such claim. That is untrue and for that reason, I said

If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

I remember taking this up with JoshTheFirst. Same verses I posted here and he was contradicting himself.


The quotes I put for you is not in support or in counter of anything but to show you what some other "christians" believe. Do those people stop being christian?

jayriginal:

Lol. Calm down. Dont bust a blood vessel.

The point you seem to be missing and which I had tried to subtly pass across to you is that people hold all kinds of differing beliefs, even among christians.

For instance, there are christians who insist on tithing and christians who dont. Christians who believe in the trinity and christians who dont. Christians who believe their denominations are the truth and christians who dont.

Coming back home, there are christians who believe in hell and christians who dont.

Now, go back again and read my replies to you. Maybe you will see the light.

Perhaps I should elucidate a bit further.

You dismissing me as a non-christian was wrong. Furthermore you stated that christianity doesnt make any such claim. That is untrue and for that reason, I said

If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

I remember taking this up with JoshTheFirst. Same verses I posted here and he was contradicting himself.

#I did not make a mistake in "dismissing" you in the first place. Christianity or any discipline or profession has rules and mandates for it's believing/practicing members. There is no where in the bible that stipulates any christian doctrine for non-christians. The fact that people misunderstand or misapply/misuse christianity does not change the original truth of it. Whoever preaches tithes, then it is binding on tithe believers. Whoever preaches the law of Moses, then it is binding on law believers. Likewise, christianity as a whole is binding on people who believe themselves to be christians. If you disagree with me on these, then perhaps you should point them out from christian scriptures.

okeyxyz:


#I did not make a mistake in "dismissing" you in the first place. Christianity or any discipline or profession has rules and mandates for it's believing/practicing members. There is no where in the bible that stipulates any christian doctrine for non-christians. The fact that people misunderstand or misapply/misuse christianity does not change the original truth of it. Whoever preaches tithes, then it is binding on tithe believers. Whoever preaches the law of Moses, then it is binding on law believers. Likewise, christianity as a whole is binding on people who believe themselves to be christians. If you disagree with me on these, then perhaps you should point them out from christian scriptures.

No, I wont go into tithing and such with you. Thats not exactly in focus here.

Now see the bolded? From my understanding it implies subjectivity. Something like "be it according to your faith" or whatever you believe applies to you.

Now look at the italized below again


Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Doesnt look like anyone is excluded from this. Is the above not found in the bible?

Is there another interpretation other than the obvious?

Is a christian not a christian because he/she holds some different beliefs from you?

jayriginal:

No, I wont go into tithing and such with you. Thats not exactly in focus here.

Now see the bolded? From my understanding it implies subjectivity. Something like "be it according to your faith" or whatever you believe applies to you.

Now look at the italized below again


Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Doesnt look like anyone is excluded from this. Is the above not found in the bible?

Is there another interpretation other than the obvious?

Is a christian not a christian because he/she holds some different beliefs from you?

I see where you are coming from, and this is a majority interpretation. however, being majority does not make it truth. There is a reason christianity is regarded as spiritual instead of pure-literal and this is emphasized quite well in the scriptures. To be spiritual implies having consciousness and interpretations beyond the mere-literal. Not that christians should not recognize literal(or secular) knowledge and laws but that they should understand to keep them separate, blah blah blah.

Back to your instance above, A believer is not merely someone who believes in the literal sense of belief, rather it is someone who practices an established doctrine, hence the question of faith. Faith is not a belief(again, as the world understands it to be), faith is a substance(practice, demonstration) of an established doctrine/message. A practicer is the true believer. So Jesus says: All who practices(believes) his teachings will be saved and those who after believing yet fails to practice will be condemned.

Furthermore: You cannot take any of Jesus's teachings literally, and I mean Any!!!, though when taken literally they make sense, sounds good and commendable and is why everybody loves Jesus, whether they are christians or not, because his words appeals to everybody when taken literally/secularly. But within this literalness is hidden the true gospel of christianity, and it is given to a few to understand this fact. Jesus taught in parables deliberately for the purpose of hiding the true meanings of the subjects he speaks about. The apostle Paul makes emphasis that people who take the law(and Jesus's teachings) literally will surely miss the message, and this includes the majority of people.

ooman: You can't be anymore enlightened when your mind is already made up about believing a god, neither can you be a seeker when you think your god and his book has all the answer.

Get your points straight.

I don't think you get his point then.

To hold that because one is a seeker he shouldn't hold any position, even if he has sought and found it true, is not an element of a truth.
To always be in a position of doubt, even when his senses have come upon evidence, has already lowered him to the position of the irrational skeptic.
If you don't agree i'd like to know why.