Hugh, please reconsider. You have offended no one. I, for one, would like to know your opinions on the broad range of issues we talk about on the forum.
I know its a weakness on my part, but I am concerned that many who feel this way have not carefully considered what's at risk. Why a weakness? It's obvious to anyone that you care about people. That's not a weakness. High five on you, Hugh.
There is no weakness when one dares to show so much concern for another’s life, either in the now or the hereafter. My mission for a number of years was to teach and lead homeless teens and adults using the Gospel of our Lord. Thusly, the only problem I have with heaven and hell teaching is that I would, if I could, leave the issue of rewards or destruction until that time when the new child of God is developing into an adult. Alas, that doesn’t seem at all possible in the scheme of things for love is an undefinable thing whereas gold and silver or fire are things that mankind can easily relate to. We humans are synonymous with Pavlov’s dogs in that our largest motivator to do anything are physical rewards. If we look back at David, we see trust, devotion and love with no indication of want for a reward. Granted, he finally did become king, (which is where he had a major downfall) but that wasn’t even close to being in the picture until after his episode with Goliath and even then, it was years before he became King. As it is, we look at the promise of heaven for those in Christ complete with streets of gold, gates of giant peals and mansions filled with everything imaginable. Whether those promised treasures are hyperbole or absolute fact, how is it that the House of the Lord will be completely opened to we “believers” but yet, we resist opening ourselves, or earthly doors as it were, to He who would provide such treasures? I guess what it all boils down to is the trust issue. Do we believe IN Him, On Him or do we perchance, as a child full of awe for such love, simply believe Him?
I've memorized the entire Bible. Don't believe me? John 15:12. The rest follows from there. I'm trying to be kind of an agnostic thorn in Bobby's side. His expression of his Christianity is heartfelt, honest and intellectually rigorous.
I would much rather have an agnostic’s thorn than the flowery words of a pretender. With the agnostic, I can see the thorn and be at the ready but the words of a pretender are fraught with things hidden which are far more dangerous. Edit: Oh, and yes, you absolutely do know the Bible from start to finish.
Frankly, I've been a little frustrated with the word agnostic. I don't mean to be dismissive or disrespectful, but it seems to me they are one who is trying to be "on the fence", meaning that they are sort of playing both sides. Bluntly speaking, they are ready to swing either way, depending on what seems to suit them, religiously. They always reply that there is not enough proof either way whether there is or is not a God. Now, this may sound contentious, but I really do not think there is a "true" agnostic. Why? Well, in Jesus own words " He that is not with me is against me." In other words, there are places in scripture where the option of agnosticism is not permissible. Also Jesus said in Rev. when speaking to the seven churches, "‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth." (Rev 3:15-16 ) In other words, you are either on the side of Christ (the word "Christian" came about by those who called the followers "little Christs" at Antioch in Paul's day) or you are not. To me an agnostic is in reality an atheist for all practical purposes. (remember: I didn't say this - God did, so if you have a quarrel, it is with God,not me). From my experience, here is the definition of atheism: (you my modify this any way you want, by adding or subtracting as desired) One who believes that there is no absolute morality, and that a deity is not needed to have a happy and fulfilled life. One who believes in only the physical universe, and all laws that exist are the ones that are provable with the scientifically established ones. So, morality is a built-in facet that has evolved from eons for survival of the species; therefore there is no a need for a moral lawgiver. In fact the ideas of soul, spirit, and afterlife are nonexistent. Right and wrong are innate, rational, and self-evident. Consequently, there is no ultimate authority to give account to except oneself. The idea of a “god” is extraneous. So, since one who calls himself/herself an agnostic is really not for Christ, so for all intents and purposes they may as well admit it - they are in reality an atheist.
I understand the premise and indeed, your observations are most welcomed and probably in most ways accurate but if you will, what would Thomas, in this day and age be called prior to actually touching Jesus after the resurrection? Thomas needed proof and the Christ was right there to give such proof to him in order that he would believe. And it wasn’t just seeing Jesus that made him believe but touching the scars where those wretched nails pierced his hands and feet and where the spear was shoved into His side that finally caused Thomas to believe. But prior to anything else that Jesus allowed Thomas to do, Thomas asked, is it really you? To me, an agnostic is simply a person who hasn’t asked the right question. They ask questions about everything there is to ask except one: Is it Really You?
Hugh, can I report to you that I am a 'true' agnostic? You still cite scripture as evidence after acknowledging that that evidence isn't adequate.I'm 'not for Christ' as you put it. How does that make me an atheist? An atheist is sure there is no God. Myself, I don't know much of anything about God., whether he exists or doesn't. That's called agnostic. Get it? I suspect agnosticism bothers you more than atheism because the atheist is easily classified as anti-God, whereas the agnostic could actually be a moral person.
Yes, I see your point, and I'm inferring from your comments that you see mine too. Put another way, let's assume a moment that the bible is true (for the sake of discussion). Now, look at Matt 25:32 a moment, in Jesus' discourse concerning the last days: "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." I think all know what follows from there, but notice that there are not 3 choices - One is either a "sheep or a goat", and nothing else. Let me say that I have struggled with this a long time. What about the person who is a good family man, a good provider, a model citizen, courteous, has integrity, and is in many ways exemplifies the "christian life" better than a lot of professed Christians? From an earthly viewpoint it seems there SHOULD be a third choice - maybe somewhere between heaven and hell that he/she could be placed in. That's one of the first questions that I will ask when I get to heaven (along with the question of why children get terminal diseases and die) But that is,seemingly unfair to us, not an option that Christ allowed. Either we have our names in the Lamb's Book of Life or we don't depending upon the requirement of Rom 10:9,10) "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." and also found in other scriptures such as Acts 16:31. I know there are some well-known agnostics, or so they call themselves. One was Bertrand Russell, a brilliant mathematician, and as far as I know he never became a believer, sadly. This goes back to my statement in the 3rd paragraph above. In fact Russell made this statement: When people feel the evidence for a claim is strong, they can be confident in the claim, consider it true, and act accordingly, but they should always keep their minds open to new evidence or further thinking that might change their opinions. With all the latest evidence there is today - archaeology, prophecies fulfilled, increase in knowledge, pestilences, earthquakes, etc, should sway the pendulum, in my view. On a personal note, I'm storing up enough water for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for an earthquake that may hit near. This is not just my opinion, but Jesus told us in Matt 24, that pestilences (as we are having now) and earthquakes would be among the signs that we are headed for "troublous times". So I'm taking His words seriously.
I'm failing to see a contrast that should be there, Hugh. Are you comparing your beliefs to a conclusion from evidence or a faith from inspiration? I'm not saying they have to be one or the other, but I need to know the thrust of your argument. Scripture is still the only evidence you site, only this time you wish it assumed (even temporarily) that scripture is true before you begin. You must see that there is no way for me to answer these scriptural arguments. You believe. I do not. Bertrand Russel isn't an example I'd use to show agnostics as moral. He was more amoral than anything - not the best of persons. As far as there being no third way, you believe that the Bible describes God's thought.. Do you contend that it is his complete thought? Might he not have other plans for, say, people of other religions, aliens from other planets, etc.that aren't detailed in the Bible? Hugh, I'm going to quit this discussion with you.I mentioned that I didn't mind a philosophical discussion but didn't want to argue religion. We are arguing religion and I'm going to stop. Take care.
That's understandably an insightful thought, and correct to a certain degree. However that doesn't apply to God. For example, Philip asked Jesus a similar question, as Jesus was describing God and how He was preparing the many mansions for the believers. To paraphrase the verse in John 14:6, Philip, apparently a little impatient, said "Why don't you just show us the Father, and then we know, and that will be sufficient?" Jesus replied: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" Jesus was the full embodiment of God, and to know HIm is the same as knowing God, according to scripture. But to perform the act that you are referring to, if I wanted my dog to understand me, I'd have to become a dog, but there is no way I can do that.