Dan56

I personally don't believe in infant baptism, that's mostly a Catholic thing. The lost are anyone outside of Christ, nothing coercive about it, a person either believes and accepts him, or disbelieves and rejects him. As I stated, no one is born believing, they simply come around to it. Its ultimately free will because its their choice, no one can bully a person into believing. I wouldn't care if a Buddhist or any other religious person said they would pray for me. I'd tell them not to bother and that its a waste of time because it wouldn't do any good, but I could care less if they insisted and went ahead and prayed for me anyhow. The bible is clear that everyone will have an opportunity to accept Christ, I believe the millennium is a thousand year period set aside after Christ's first coming specifically for teaching all those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel while in the flesh (Revelation 20). God is righteous, and won't unjustly condemn anyone who is ignorant of the Truth. Everyone is judged by the law (God's commandments). The curse of the law is the penalty for breaking the law (death). Christians believe Christ bore our transgressions on the cross (Isaiah 53), thereby removing the curse of the law for all who believe. Nonbelievers who reject his sacrifice will be judged by their works (deeds) and condemned for being guilty of sin, because they have no Savior. No, I haven't read any Archbiships writings

Agreed..... I'd never pray for an unbeliever in front of them, that's too pushy and that kind of in-your-face approach would be more confrontational than helpful.

I reckon I'm here for the same reason you are.. Just answering questions, throwing my opinions around, and saying what I think.

Yes, its all accepted by faith.. Nearly anything can be faked, my grandma thought the moon landing was faked ☺️. But I see enough biblical credibility to have convinced me it couldn't be fake. What's sufficient evidence to one is insufficient to another. Most Atheist wouldn't believe a miracle if they witnessed one, they would instead be looking for an explanation of how the trick was done 😊

I used Islam as an example, but my point was that I don't respect any religion outside of my own. That's the curse of Monotheism 😊. That's not to say that I don't respect free choice and everyone's right to belief what they want, but just that I can't respect something I don't agree with, believe is not true, or would ever accept myself. That said, the Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims (Jews & Christians). So while Muhammad taught to seek out and kill your enemies (Quran 9:5), Christ taught to love and pray for your enemies (Matthew 5:44). Two diametrically opposing views.

No one is born a Christian, those who became Christians had their hearts turned towards the faith, so they simply pray for others who are what they once were. Nothing wrong with praying for the lost. Christ is salvation, redemption is not possible for those who reject him. Accepting or rejecting Christ is exercising free will, one choice leads to eternal life and the other to eternal damnation. God is not all-forgiving towards non-believers, they are judged by the law, and the curse of the law applies as the wages of sin is death.

In the old testament, the priest offered intercessory prayer for the congregation, but with Christ crucifixion, the veil in the temple was ripped in half, no longer separating John Q Public from the inner sanctuary, giving every individual believer direct access to God through Christ. Catholicism still uses priest, who grant forgiveness to the penitent, but most Christians believe there is one intermediary for prayer, and that is Christ. No go-between is necessary to interpose or intervene, but preaching, teaching, and interpreting scripture are all part of carrying the gospel message forward. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25)

No, I don't think you were upset... But I took from your above comment in red that you might be on the verge of loosing it, or were at least getting frustrated? Whereby my response; "Understood... Its important to keep your temper in tact".. I assumed since you were resisting getting 'mean or uncivil', that you preferred bringing the conversation to an end in order to avoid getting angry.

We have a witnessed record of it happening and that's enough for me. I'm not trying to prove anything, just simply pointing out why I think its true, but everyone looks at the evidence or the lack thereof and judges for themselves. With regards to the bible, the written record of what occurred is the evidence. Throw out all the written records of Custer's last stand, Julius Caesar's death, the constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, and prove without those records and documents that any of that happened? We accept that its all true because it was written down and witnessed. While the bible was not intended as a historical record, name me one city named in it that has been proven not to have ever existed? Archaeological discoveries have proven it to be geographically accurate, every town that Christ and Paul visited were real. Given that it can't be proven historically inaccurate, geographically and archaeologically wrong, that King David or Pontius Pilate were fake characters, or that its prophetically false, wouldn't it seem illogical to presume the stories are fictional.

mererdog is correct, I know of no Protestant's who pray to or through saints, they would find that blatantly offensive. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus instructed us to pray through his name only (John 14:14 & 16:23). Mormons pray directly to the Father.

Understood... Its important to keep your temper in tact. The end of most atheist debate is that; "The bible isn't true", because they have no other real answers that discredit or prove that a book written thousands of years ago is wrong. The inability to prove its false is as telling as proving its true. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because its an observable repetitive pattern, but I also have faith that time stops at His second coming, bye bye sunrise 🛑 There's no argument to a fulfilled prophecy, it is what it is and it always brings an opposing view to a quick conclusion, there's just no defense to it. Roman soldiers gambled for the cloths of Jesus, prophesied 1000 years before the fact (Psalm 22:18 & Mark 15:24). It doesn't matter to me what book its in, something that remarkable has credibility.

Unless you personally witnessed what I had for lunch, it certainly requires evidence to substantiate such a trivial thing. Many people witnessed Christ, and most all the apostles were killed for their testimony. If you were on a jury and several witnesses identified the defendant as the bank robber, you'd find him guilty. Would your verdict be based on subjective or verifiable evidence? To me, a fulfilled prophecy is objective evidence because its verifiable.. Someone telling me that something specific will happen hundreds of years before it does, and then it occurs exactly as they stated it would, that signs, seals, and delivers evidence, nothing subjective about it.

I'll take you at your word of course.. I just asked for an example because I assumed it would be something in the physical realm, e.g; evolution, big bang, science, etc... But in regards to the unseen spiritual realm, I assume being an atheist that you have no belief or faith in anything beyond what can be explained and comprehended using your own cognitive reasoning? This would seem to leave anything divine off-limits. I reckon that's the difference between belief and faith?

I have to agree with Jonathan here, can a person really 'respect' something they think is crazy? I don't respect Islam, I couldn't if I tried, and I'm sure others can't respect what I believe. But I think the idea of ULC is to respect every individuals right to believe whatever they choose.. I doubt its possible to respect something you think is absolutely wrong, that would be like telling an ugly girl that she's pretty. I guess the trick is to disagree with what someone else believes without putting them down for believing it.

I disagree, I won't waste time with a 100 examples, but we make choices everyday in the absence of evidence.. Even so, evidence is subjective, what I consider evidence, you don't, and vice-versa. The bible is evidence to me, it has been archaeologically proven correct, prophetically realized, etc. That kind of evidence is sufficient for me. And despite being written 2000 to 3500 years ago, no one has proven it to be incorrect or inaccurate. I disagree.. Give an example of something an atheist chooses to believe in despite having no explanation or understanding of how it could be true? Faith requires believing without seeing, what do atheist accept by faith?

Its been my contention that belief is a choice, non-belief is also a choice. A nonbeliever reads the same book I do, but comes to a different conclusion. To make the assertion that free will is negated because God has foreknowledge of everything that will happen (omniscient), presupposes that God is incapable of changing what might automatically happen and is not all powerful (omnipotent). When God tested Abraham by requiring him to sacrifice Issac, He said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12). This suggest God does not know our choices before we make them. John 3:16 says, "Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish". That's a calling that requires a choice, not a forgone conclusion of who will or won't believe. And most Christians don't cheer or applaud that nonbelievers will perish, one reason some are so pushy is because they don't want to see that happen.

I mentioned several items that I consider evidence, but its not evidence to nonbelievers.. Seeing Christ himself raise Lazarus from the dead would not be evidence to you, because you couldn't verify how it was done. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). Atheist have no faith in anything they can't understand or explain. If fulfilled prophecy is rejected as evidence, then imo, your in denial of evidence that was presented and demonstrated. Consider Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, both are prophesies about the Messiah written 1000 and 700 years prior to Christ fulfilling them. To me, that's point blank in-your-face evidence that can't be explained away.

That's why its all argumentative, you state the theory of evolution as fact while dismissing the Creation theory as unproven. Whatever a person chooses to accept, it all comes down to belief. For myself, I'm convinced that the complexity of DNA is evidence of intelligent design. It sure makes a lot more sense than believing that random mutations are the accidental reason for all life forms having evolved from single celled organisms. Imo, the macro-evolutionary theory requires a lot more faith and gullibility to accept than God being the uncaused cause of all life. My book says we were created for a purpose, your book suggest that our existence is an accidental fluke; e.g, Once upon a time, we were pond scum. Hmm?

Apparently, billions of people do believe, so your assertion of "no reasons to believe" are inaccurate. Verifiable facts are all around you, you just don't like or choose to accept the answers. Your DNA is like a blueprint of your soul, could something as astounding as our DNA have come from anywhere else but a creator? There are no naturalistic processes capable of such elaborate design and creation. Adherence to a belief system in denial of that objective reality suggest that an atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. Its tantamount to suggesting that computers are a result of random chance via the evolutionary process. The bible is its own ultimate proof. Ask yourself; Is it rational or logical? Does the physical evidence support it? Does it fit the evidence better than any alternative theory? Have many of its prophesies have been realized? Does your own personal opinion, public consensus, or science, provide a plausible first cause for all that exist? The tombs of Confucius, Buddha and Mohammad are all occupied, Christ is empty... Explain that?

Your points are all argumentative, so perhaps "Its none of your business" would be a better response after-all... ☺️ No proof certainly eliminates the necessity of debating the details, and walking away is a time saver ...

Its difficult to go against the Universal life Church, its pretty much an open forum where people are free to express whatever they choose to believe.. But don't be too discouraged if you don't get much help in the study, I don't know of anyone here who accepts the Hebrew Roots movement? From what I understand, it seems similar to what the Messianic Christians believe.

No one has a burden of answering why they do or don't believe in God, but it would seem to be polite conversation to articulate your reasons for believing or not believing.. Its just more polite to say, "I don't believe in God because..." rather than saying, "Its none of your business". But your essentially correct, your under no obligation to explain why you don't believe in God anymore than a person is required to explain why they do believe in God. I understand that most Atheist don't want to be preached at, so if I were you, I'd just say that I've never seen or heard from any God, that I think the stories are just a bunch of made-up crap, and that I can't blindly accept anything without an inkling of tangible evidence to prove its authentic. Hopefully a response like that will bring the conversation to a quick conclusion and you can gracefully exit.

No, your absolutely right... This is a diversified forum where people are adamant about what they do and don't believe. Nothing wrong with a Christian posting about what they believe. Why anyone would feel insulted by it is beyond my comprehension. If a Christian believes non-believers will go to hell, why in the world would that bother someone who doesn't even believe in hell? Its no different than an Atheist telling a Christian they aren't going to heaven because there isn't any heaven and the book they believe in is nothing more than made-up fables. The preaching goes both directions, slamming what you don't believe is no different than promoting what you do believe. Nothing should be construed as threatening or an attack, especially on a board consisting of multiple beliefs. The trick is to articulate what we believe without force-feeding it onto others.. I suppose the answer to the original thread title is that scriptures are sufficient to those who believe them, but woefully inadequate to those who don't.

Not being a smart-aleck, but what's the difference? I mean, if a person is incorrect, aren't they wrong? And if a person is wrong, how can they be correct? I'm relatively certain, that's only because they don't believe in eternal damnation .. Some Atheist do mock others for believing in fairy tales, and that's not much better... Just saying, the pendulum often swings both ways. There's an ignore option? I'm surprised I'm not on everyone's ignore list by now