Jesus is Lord

Post Reply New Topic

Atheists and scriptural fence builders, questions for you.

Can you say, "Jesus is Lord"? Say it, or try and say it. What does it feel like for you to say those words if you could and what was your inner dialogue like?

I'm pretty sure anyone could just parrot words really, so if so does that remove the literal meaning of 1st Corinthians 12:3 from the realm of possibilities?

"Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

I'm sure over the centuries there are probably a few doctrines contrived to explain why "heretics" might be able to say "Jesus is Lord" and still be counted as "heretics", so what are they? Some vague "but they didn't REALLY mean it just this way" or some other excuse like that to mistreat fellow Christians which don't agree on every minor issue.

So, again:

Atheists, and assorted whatevers that also hate Christians, say "Jesus is Lord" out loud or try to as an experiment and pay attention to any invasive thoughts and emotions.

Churchian dogma nerds: what are the excuses as to how it is possible for "heretics" and nonbelievers to say Jesus is Lord, presuming they can, especially the already invented excuses but speculation is okay too.

Thanks, and yes I do believe that Jesus is Lord.

So you're saying it's wrong to hurt fellow Christains who believe in Jesus but OK to hurt "heretics" as you call them?

Or am I missing something?

Said "Jesus is lord" out loud three times.

Still a passionate and unapologetic "heretic".

Check Mate, Christians!

Meh, I'm agnostic. I get annoyed by atheists just as much as I do Christians because many of them are arrogant and small-minded too.

Atheists are the kind of people who believe that something absolutely does not exist until proven otherwise by scientists, and anybody who does believe it before it is actually proven to exist is just an inferior idiot. Am I the only one who understands how ignorant and arrogant that way of thinking is?

You understand that most atheists are agnostic atheists, right?

Many follow and parrot without believing or knowing what they follow. The Second Commandment forbids the use of images, but show me a Christian (besides the Amish) who follows this today. One can argue that extremists are the only true believers.

What?

A true atheist believes without a shadow of a doubt that there is no higher power or afterlife. An agnostic believes those things may or may not exist but they doubt that anybody actually knows the truth.

I don't believe a person can be both. If you don't believe at all you are an atheist, but if you sorta believe but have your doubts then you are an agnostic.

It's perfectly possible not to believe a thing to be the case without claiming definitive knowledge. Atheism: I don't believe gods exists. Agnostic: I don't know for certain whether or not there are gods. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing.

So you're repeating my point like it's your own point and still claiming I'm wrong?

You're pretty much contradicting yourself too.

No, what you said is that it's not possible to simultaneously not know if gods exist (agnostic) and not believe that they do (atheist). What I said is that it is perfectly possible, and in fact the position of most atheists.

That is not what I said at all. Quit putting words in my mouth and twisting s**t up.

Your issue seems to be that your definition of both atheist and agnostic is incorrect.

"Atheism" means "without (A-) belief in gods (Theism). I don't think gods exist.

"Agnosticism" means "without (A-) knowledge (gnosis). I don't know for sure.

That is exactly what I said and you're implying that I am wrong anyways?

I think you're just being contentious here. I'm done.

It feels precisely the same as saying "There is but one God, and Muhammad is his prophet", or "Twinkle, twinkle, little star."
Perhaps "it is possible for "heretics" and nonbelievers to say Jesus is Lord" because the Holy Spirit is simply an imaginary friend for grown-ups, with no super-powers whatsoever.

Ahh ... I see the OP's plan is working!

Mass confusion, conflict, and a general mood of anger and contempt has been provoked.

That's a constantly recurring debate -basically a semantic debate.

It's popular to break it up into:atheist-agnostic-theist, with folks thinking that agnostic is some kind of gray zone between the other two. I used to think of it that way too. But someone persuaded me that that was a distortion of the meaning of "agnostic". Agnostic doesn't have that "ist" stuck on the end because its not part of the same dichotomy as the other two. Supposedly you can be an agnostic religious person (believes in god but realizes that the belief is based on faith), or you can be an agnostic atheist who doubts the existence of god but admits that they don't know for sure.

However...

One problem with that is that it implies that their is a second dichotomy: that between "knowers" and "not knowers". That there are both theists and atheists who are totally sure that there is/is not a god. It implies that there is an opposite thing to "agnositic". So what do you call that opposite?

Logically the opposite of agnostics (either the religious or the atheist kinds) would be called "gnostics" (Greek: somehow who knows) because that would be the opposite of "agnostic" (someone who doesn't know).But there is a problem with that because the word "Gnostic" is already taken. Its what they call the followers of the extinct (though some are now reviving it) heretical form of Christianity called "Gnosticism" that competeted with other early forms of Christianity (including the forunner of Christianity as we know it today) back in early post apostolic Roman times.

So..if you're gonna slice it that way and place "agnostic" on a separate axis perpendicular to the "theist-atheist" axis then what do you call the opposite of "agnostic"?