Jesus is Lord

Post Reply New Topic

As you say, the proper term for that would be a gnostic. And I don't know whether this is true for group called the Gnostics, but there have been Christian sects where part of the religious practice was to assert not merely your faith but your knowledge that God exists etc. Presumably this was referred to as "gnosis" in this case as well.

Also,when the term agnostic was coined, it referred not to someone who aknowledges that they don't know, but rather someone who believes it can't be known.

And I don't think the dichotomy becomes so much between those who know and those who don't, but rather between those who will say they know and those who will not. Obviously there are enough people being absolutely assured of the rectitude of their mutually incompatible positions that most of them have to be wrong to some degree.

It comes down to a balance of probability. If you ask me today how long it'll take before I've paid of my mortgage, I'll give an estimate of many years. But that's not an assertion that I've looked into the future and know for sure that I won't win the lottery tomorrow and pay it off within the week. But I don't believe that will happen, and I'd think it irresponsible of me to act as though it will.

An atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, or lacks a belief in God.

What does it feel like when I say "Jesus is Lord?" Nothing. I am not a Christian. What does it feel like for you when you say "Jesus is not Lord?"

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father who is in heaven."

We aren't to judge, lest our atheist neighbors are found to be doing better at this than we are.

Most atheists seem to know the Bible better than most Christians.

Maybe that's why they are atheists.

I think you've all missed the point.

The OP was taking that verse literally to mean that non believers can't say "Jesus is Lord."

But obviously non believers can. So what does that mean? How would a believer explain that away?

Yeah, every atheist I've known can quote more scripture than the average Christian. But you know, I'm still a big fan of Jesus and his teachings. It's a large percentage of his fan club with whom I have a major problem.

Perhaps one or more of the following:
1. The OP is "messing with us".
2. The OP doesn't know the truth.
3. The OP knows the truth and denies it.
4. The OP's religious beliefs were taken from the writings of Cotton Mather.
5. The OP still has not recovered from his divorce, and is over-compensating for it.James 2:19 (NIV) -- "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -- and shudder."

His "Sermon on the Mount" is inspirational even to other religions. I've visited New-Age shops that have the Beatitudes on prominent display.

The Devil quoted Scriptures from Psalm 91:11-12 to Jesus Himself:

I went into the bathroom, turned out the lights, and said "Jesus is lord" three times into the mirror and he showed up behind me and asked why I don't drink his blood anymore.

I just tried it a minute ago. I said "Jesus is Lord" and then I felt a powerful presence. It felt overwhelming but kind. Warm and loving. I heard the voice of God. It was the most beautiful sound. Deep but nurturing. God said "You have returned to me, my son". I felt all my worries melt away. I felt my hatred for my enemies fade to nothing. I felt loved and I felt love for all mankind, even those I once called enemies. Just kidding. I said "Jesus is Lord" and absolutely nothing happened.

Most atheists refrain from believing in something until it has been proven to exist. That's not the same as believing it absolutely does not exist.

I don't believe anyone is an inferior idiot. Yet you're saying people who take a position contrary to your own are "ignorant and arrogant". Perhaps you're projecting your feelings onto us.

For anyone with a Christian upbringing, even if atheist, agnostic, or pagan now, at least if that person didn't necessarily have a bad falling out or have their time associated with being bible-beaten, generally has a nostalgic feeling when they say 'Jesus is Lord'. It's an idea, the idea brings back moods and memories. I think there's also quite possibly a broader structure for this sort of thing to jack into, metaphysically, but as strange as it sounds it's as if everything except for the 'he died on the cross for our sins' could be taken as having some either historical or cultural reality to it.

On the talk earlier about atheism - I think one of the things that never sat well with me was when someone said 'I'm 99.9999% sure there's no God but notice I didn't say 100%, therefore I'm agnostic and have epistemic humility - can't touch me!'. If that person's behavior is then wrapped in all kinds of antitheist saber-rattling it sort of shows the hollowness and cynicism of that claim. Whatever they'd want to call themselves 'dogmatic zealot' would still apply.

What I'd also say is also a problem is just how ill-defined the term 'God' is. Ill-defined terms, kicking off debates without agreed-upon definitions, is a great way for conversations to go straight downhill. Also I'd note that if one wants to talk about an all-powerful, omnipresent, and omnipotent being - this is really a sort of Neoplatonist pantheism. Christianity sort of started off on a footing where it borrowed a lot from Greek philosophy in it's conception of God and Judaism seems to have evolved from being henotheistic to also generally embracing similarly pantheistic precepts.

Why would that still apply? Theists still use god to justify unjust biblical actions. A sliver of skepticism about the god claim doesn't make those actions just. They are unjust even if a god existed with certainty.

In no other area of knowledge to we demand 100% certainty. The preponderance of evidence is almost always sufficient. I want to start a solar panel factory, but I only know the sun will continue to shine with 99.9999% certainty.

You're highlighting something I already knew about this though - ie. it's not about logical consistency, it's about winning a political war against something that's deemed to be demonically awful, the religious right. The problem with taking that approach forward in a completely unabated manner is a) it's bringing false ontological certainties to bear and distorting reality in a different direction, b) it alienates the whole range of people from soft-atheists to a great many, perhaps most, agnostics who might have a completely different view not only of what religion is but where it fits into the schema of things like game theory and evolutionary psychology.

I think the most dangerous thing about hitting religion as hard is that it has this particular nasty side effect - it carves religion out as something particularly special and then it breaks the line of continuum between other things which are extremely close cousins, like political ideology, which need just as much searing scrutiny. The 20th century was filled with apocalyptic blunders based on 'we're liberated and rational beings' - we roundly debunked that before 1950. Now in the 21st century we have even more power to destroy ourselves, to turn the world into a dystopia, so we really have to look beyond distortions for the sake of winning a tribal war and pay much more attention to nailing things down accurately with as much attention to the relevant complexity as possible.