Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Agnostics Who Call Themselves Christians

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Agnostics Who Call Themselves Christians

    I have come across agnostics who call themselves Christians such as "Seth". An agnostic who calls himself a Christian thinks it judgmental when a Christian identifies him as being unsaved because he refuses to give his life to the God who proves Himself in nature (Rom. 1.20) and instead just believes in whatever blindly because he says he can't know anyway. Why assume this? If God says He has a proof, then He has a proof that leaves you without excuse. Why reject what our Creator says? Stop being a fake Christian. Stop being dishonest with yourself.

    If the proof of nature is given and it can't be overturned, then what's the problem? Why separate yourself from God like that? Nature tells us what? It tells us there is always a cause in nature, so anything natural needs a cause from something. Therefore, it can't just pop into existence from nothing. Don't try to be couth and say that some particles seem to pop into existence just because you don't know the cause. Bring down your prideful assuming nature and let the overwhelming evidence take hold there are trillions of causes in nature. You can, thus, be 100% certain nature needs a cause.

    You can also be 100% certain the universe could not always have existed, because if it did, mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity, but mankind would not still be sinning to the existent he still does along the exponential progression of conscience he is clearly on. This proves unequivocally the universe or alleged universes couldn't have been going on for an eternity of the past.

    An agnostic who calls himself a Christian asked me, "Do you not see that there is a difference between a blind and unsupported faith, and a grounded faith based on scripture, observation and experience that is not 100% provable by science?" No. There is no difference since the latter could be wrong, so it is in doubt. A square circle is 100% impossible. A married bachelor is 100% impossible. You can be 100% sure about the fact that nature can't always have existed nor pop into existence from nothing. You are "without excuse". How about trust what God says rather than go your own independent way with your opinions? Without a proof, you would be justified in having a excuse such as not 100% evidence.

    The same agnostic asked me, "Could you please explain how you make the enormous logical leap from 'being without excuse' to 'The existence of God is 100% provable by science'? Why does this have to be the case for men to be without excuse?" As was already said, since it is fully proven, and easy enough for anyone to understand, the responsibility is on you to receive God of the Bible. A person did not have to get a ph.d. or live in some particular place on earth to have the proper vantage point. This is inherent knowledge we all possess given to us by God. The problem is that many suppress it at their own peril due to their sin nature and selfish endeavors that block the path of righteousness.

    The usual suspects are always presented; nothing is really new under the sun. The agnostic (and false Christian) then tries to fathom cycles theory, but of course that is silly because it not only violates existing scientific knowledge that the universe will never collapse on itself because dark energy is a force pushing exponentially faster than matter and dark matter are collapsing in; but even if there were cycles, this still would place man into the approximately of that past eternity of cycles, so that man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does along the exponential progression of conscience he is clearly on.

    Finally, statistics corroborates the fact that you can be 100% sure because of the progression of those statistics are increasingly moving in one direction exponentially. With each additional century we find more causes and never find something happening from nothing. What we did not know the cause for we often find the cause to. And likewise we see more of the exponential progression of conscience in man. Ergo, we are left with no other possibility than God's perfect proof of Himself by observing nature, and we can stand on Romans 1.20 rather than blindly believe in what we deem to be God without support.

    That is surely Satan who would make you think you don't need to prove all things as the Bible says. God would never take that position so to deny this is to deny God for self. How can God's standards be below our own? If we need to prove things in this life to grow and develop, then how can God demand less of us? Unless what you deem to be God is really the evil spirit, again proving the "agnostic Christian" is really no Christian at all.

    That's the proof of nature in a nutshell, but of course there is the proof of resurrection proving who God is. For nearly two millenia, nobody has been able to depend on a naturalistic explanation for the data supporting the resurrection claim--the very data most scholars concede with substantial reasons--though they may not want to give their lives to Christ. Since the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead, people don't allow themselves to die for what they know to be a lie, and group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, we are left with the inextricable fact Jesus raised Himself from the dead because He is God.

    Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Re: Seth
    http://www.agnosticforums.com/member.php?u=7270

    Quote Originally Posted by Seth
    Interestingly enough, 'foolish' is actually one of the insults you used in the previous thread. Along with far worse ones.
    Accusations that are false and unsupported.

    Ummm.. No it doesn't. The cycles theory doesn't necessarily mean that mankind has existed before. This could just happen to be the one cycle where intelligent life arose. This would still be the only time that mankind has existed, and they would have still existed for a finite period. It would be indistinguishable from the universe we see right now. It cannot be 100% disproved with current scientific knowledge.
    The cycles theory would be false because all alleged cycles would approximate into a past eternity if it were true, and the alleged cycle man is in would so also, so man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does along the exponential progression of conscience he is clearly on. It doesn't, therefore, matter which cycle mankind would have started in. So again easily enough, you are proven false; still unsaved because you reject the God who proves Himself in nature (Rom. 1.20), rejecting the very word of God. That can't be a good thing.

    Let me re-state that I do not believe this to be the case. But I do believe that you cannot claim irrefutable knowledge, and I believe that you cannot blindly ignore the possibility that your theory of "Causality = Creator God" is not infallible proof. Who is the blind one here really? The one who is refusing to accept any other possibility to his non-Biblically based theory, or the one who simply puts his trust in The Lord and His Word?
    I can claim irrefutable proof based on this Step 2 of the 4 Step Proof for God, since you have not been able to overturn it nor have thousands of others been able to, this law of nature so easily observed. Where is it blind in realizing trillions of causes in nature are an overwhelming preponderance of evience that anything natural needs a cause, can't come from nothing, so must come from the uncreated Intelligent Designer. No other option exists. Why blindly shut your mind down to the evidence and what so obvious even to young children? I know why. Arrogantly, you live in a postmodern world of claiming you can't prove anything so you don't think you are held accountable so you can sin more and be even more selfish than you already are...even call yourself contradictorily an agnostic (or gnostic) and a Christian at the same time.

    I place my trust in the Lord who proves Himself, you place your trust an evil spirit masquerading as Jesus because the Devil teaches you can't prove God's existence. Yet God says we can and we do - see Romans 1.20. This is how I know you are going to Hell and will likely never give your life to Christ. You don't want to let go of the evil spirit you worship so God says you are "condemned already" (John 3.18). How sad for you.

    This paragraph is just garbled language. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Please note that I did not once mention multiple universes when talking about the cyclical theory.
    Not at all, it makes perfect sense. If you can't show otherwise then it stands...

    The alleged eternity of the past you propose would place not only mankind but all alleged cyclical universes so that in all universes would lead to mankind not sinning to the extent he still does. God only created this one universe, not your other universes; you've been brainwashed by science-fiction.

    You can also make a very strong case that creating cycles that never go anywhere but keep repeating themselves is not a perfect creation like the one we have, the one and only. No need for extras as pointless fluff.

    What else are you talking about than universes in your multiple cycles theory? Repeating instances of bananas? We don't live in a banana. We live in a universe. Funny.

    You are the most agnostic agnostic I have ever met; hence, you are not a Christian.

    And who invented this contradictory phrase 'Agnostic Christian'? Where did I claim to be Agnostic? That is a false accusation you have levelled at me.
    You claim to be an agnostic Christian for you say you can't prove God. Let me quote you again: you said you "can't prove it and don't need to" prove God because you prefer to worship a false God one who is impotent and powerless to prove Himself to place trust in Him.

    You know, Muhammad thought he was receiving messages from God too...
    Just like you thought you believed in the One True God, but the difference is we can prove you and Muhammad false, since the death of Jesus on the cross is very well testified and multiply corroborated in many ancient sources without even one sources denying this even my secular sources. Six centuries later a man in a cave who says otherwise isn't going to change that. And similarly, you are going to Hell along with Muhammad because you worship a god who can't prove himself, who therefore is not God of the Bible who said He proved Himself by observing nature (Romans 1.20) and other ways.

    Do you see how I was able to prove your faith and his faith are false? The Bible says prove all things. Why call God a liar? He makes a liar out of you. Perhaps you have been hanging around agnostics for too long and they have brainwashed you or you are on agnostic sites because you like worshiping a pathetic agnostic god who can't prove himself. Either way you are not a child of God.

    I never said He couldn't prove His existence.. I said I can't irrefutably prove it with science. Why would we need faith if God's existence was so readily apparent? I'm sitting on a chair right now. I don't need to have faith in the chair's existence. I know that God is real. I have experienced The Lord working in my life. I don't need to test Him.
    Yes you said he couldn't prove his existence as I have quoted your own words back to you many times: referring to anyway of proving God, you said you "can't prove it and don't need to". Naturally, when God says He proved himself in nature, i.e. science of nature (Rom. 1.20), you reject that also because you worship a false god. There is no God but God, no gods beside Him, none after Him. He is the one and only. Your god loses out.

    Let's take your exact quote in the full sentence to show you that you are not a Christian: "Same with me and God, I know his exists, I can't prove it and don't need to." I now this "God" of yours is "Satan". I know he exists and I know you worship him, but not because I say so like you do, but because you admit you worship a god who can't prove himself. You're worship the Devil who also can't prove he is the uncreated Creator, since he is not. Wow!


    We need faith to place our trust in Jesus, not because He is not proven. Satan knows God proved Himself in nature and other ways, but he places no faith in Him and does not submit to Him, because like you he wants to go another way. You have no faith in God of the Bible either, because you worship a false god who is pathetic and unable to prove himself. So God of the Bible trumps your god.

    You are placing your faith in the chair by sitting on it. I can see your faith. You know the chair exists, but the question is whether your place faith in it enough to sit in it. You don't have faith to place your trust in the God who proves Himself by nature even though you are unable to overturn the proof of God by observing nature. You are testing God, because He said in His word He proved Himself through nature and you deny it, apparently then if it were true requiring Him further to do something about it because you have not accepted what He has already done through the proof of nature. Thus, you are testing and tempting Him. Your god is not real, it is just a projection of your selfish self who rejects a God who proves Himself. It can be scary to give your life to such a powerful and righteous and holy God because you are afraid what you might have to given up (e.g. agnostic forums you have committed yourself to and a line a reasoning with them), but that is what He calls you to do if you are willing. So far you have been unwilling. I see the evil spirit working your life as a false Christ. Recall the Bible says there are many false Christs and thus, many false Christians who worship those false Christs.

    Jesus said "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." According to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word 'ekpeiraz' (here translated as 'tempt'), means "1) to prove, test, thoroughly 2) to put to proof God's character and power".
    Why do you insist you need to tempt/test/prove God? Christ told us this is not so.
    You're not really accusing me but God, for God proved Himself yet you accuse this as testing God. I feel a demon speaking through you. He proves Himself because it would be evil to worship a God who does not. That's what you do. It is evil for you to call some child your own who clearly belongs the parents across the street which is fully proven by various ways.

    You are tempting and testing God because He already proved Himself to us, yet you reject the proof of God by observing nature. Also, you are talking out the side of your face because you are saying you have some other proof of God yet for you this not a testing. You're also contradicting yourself before previously you said only a few posts ago that you can't prove God at all and you don't need to. You can't have it both ways. It really shows you are pointing to yourself and not God when you have a doublestandard like that. My prayers go out to you for you know not what you do.

    Just out of interest, how far does someone need to go to get banned from this forum?
    You're trying to martyr Christians again, but instead of appealing to the Romans to kill the Christian, you are appealing to the agnostics since you are one also. How sad for you. I would not want to be in your shoes in your fleshly antics.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    These word might help agnostics who call themselves Christians and incentivise them to stop playing games like Seth is trying to do. When I came to Christ it was not by observing nature, but nor was it denying the proof of God through nature. I simply realized from the searching of others for meaning to life they were never satisfied. This led me, repentantly, to the realization that all things sum up in Christ. That is all I had. I was born-again in that very moment based on a valid proof of God. Jesus was my life, for it was no longer I that lived by He lived in me by the Holy Spirit, guiding in me. Some people are drawn this way, others are drawn by the proof of nature (Rom. 1.2), and even others are drawn in ways I am not even aware possibly, but one thing permeates them all is that they are valid proofs, for God is a God who proves Himself to place your faith in Him. He is not like Satan who asks you to blindly believe in Him and says there is no proof. Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 09:21 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 12:05 AM
  3. You Call This Grace? I Don't. I Call It Sheer Evil
    By Scriptur in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2009, 08:27 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 01:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •