An Honest Question For ATS Preachers, page 3

reply to post by autowrench

---

Im not a good preacher. I prefer doing apologetics instead. There are some good exegetical guys on these boards though. But I doubt any of them will give you a "number" seeing as men are not trophies. They are spirits created by God.

Originally posted by article
reply to post by autowrench

---

You do realise, no one will answer you.

Christians, or anyone else, for that matter, dont like to be bated like a rat.

Scummy thing to do, there, buddy. So much for the respect of your fellow man.

So far, the only ones Ive seen, save 1 or 2, that have responded here, are those like you, that bait and pounce on anything "God" or religion.

Honestly, I hope this thread rots with no real responces. This is just one more thread to show just where the ignorance truely lies.


Have fun with it.

Well to be fair there aren't many preachers on ATS to even reply. 2 left the site earlier this year and another was banned.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by ezekielken

---

As a recent de-convert I would first have to ask to you define a Christian.

Well, I used to think they were all the same, but since my time in here, I can see that is a wrong assumption. A true Christian? One who walks and acts like Christ did. Christ never started a religion, in fact, from what I read, he was correcting the priests as a small boy. A true Christian would never show anger, or project hate, or fear to anyone, and would never damn another Soul to their imagined place of punishment. A true Christian would not call another religious faith Satan worship, or another person's God a Demon. A true Christian would study their religion back to it's origins, research their Gods and see who they are, and would read into other religions before just blindly labelling them as evil.
That is my take on it. Anyone else care to comment?

John the baptist called a spade a spade, and Jesus did not have to start a new religion,as He was the continuation of an existing one, whose roots were from the living God.

A true Christian is a human being, that fails to always act in the ideals of his beliefs, much like the others who profess light and love, total acceptance, and non judgement. They fail at their ideals as well, on occasion, and some more than others. Should we judge their beliefs by the hypocrisy of their actions compared to the so called "ideals" they hold..?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by article

---

You clearly don't know autowrench, not his character, nor his intent, and for you to publicly denounce him and put words in his mouth is unfair, nasty, and against T&C.

There are plenty of people here who are here for the SOLE PURPOSE of "defending the faith", and carrying out their "duty" (as they see it, and have self-appointed themselves for) to "preach." They even admit they are here to persuade. Who are you trying to persuade? Just everyone to dis on autowrench? How is anything you've posted on this thread positive, uplifting, or promotional of peace and tolerance?

It is posts like yours -- attacks like yours -- that perpetuate the divisive problem that is embodied by "religion."

People "defending the faith" aren't preachers/evangelists. They are called "apologists". I do apologetics, I'm not too well trained in exegetical preaching and my gift isn't as an evangelist. (Ephesians 4). You're speaking of something entirely different than the thread title and OP Wild. Some preachers also engage in apologetics, but generally their focus is on soul-winning specifically.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by autowrench

---

Dear autowrench,

You know I could never understand people like you. Why you need to attempt to irritate believers for apparently no reason. I think I finally understand. You place the responsibility on others for your relationship with God. You believe a person has to save you rather than you being responsible. This is your big cop out. I am not responsible for you or anyone other than me. You wish to have it both ways, be a non-believer and if it turns out that NDEs and heaven and hell are real then you want to blame me and others for not "saving" you. LOL.

May I respond to this, seeing as you remarked 'people like you'? The only one I blame for not (as you put it) saving me is god.

Look, someone says to you, I want you to buy my car for five thousand dollars, but I don't want you to see it before you give me the money."

Would you fork over the money? Of course not! Neither would I. So, if some book tells me that I'm risking an eternity in hell for whatever I might do in this short time on this planet, I want Jesus to sit his butt at my kitchen table and tell me to my face. Risking one's soul isn't a game!!! It isn't a joke!!! How cruel can a god be by having us guess at it? My answer, no god would do this.

If you wouldn't waste five thousand dollars on an unseen car, why would you waste your ENTIRE life on an unseen god simply because a book tells you to?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

People "defending the faith" aren't preachers/evangelists. They are called "apologists". I do apologetics, I'm not too well trained in exegetical preaching and my gift isn't as an evangelist.

Hi there, NuT.

I see how you may have interpreted what I said to say it's the SAME people who are both apologists AND preachers. I know that is not the case. I could make a nifty chart showing how I "see" who is doing what, but that's not really appropriate.

reply to post by wildtimes

---

Fair enough, but you seemed to lump apologists with the preachers/evangelists. If this isnt correct, my apologies. Apologists and preachers generally have different functions and fruit. Think of a police department. You have some officers who's job it is to defend the jail, and other officers who go into the city to bring in lawbreakers. It's a clumsy analogy but it fits. Both groups are cops and both groups answer to the police chief, yet one group's job/ focus is defensive and the other is offensive. And in correlation there aren't a lot of preachers on these parts. AQuestion is one, CLPrime is another, and like I said earlier 2 left the site this year and 1 in particular was banned.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

like I said earlier 2 left the site this year and 1 in particular was banned.

Yes, I'm aware of who they are. You gave a couple of names, but there are more than just the members you mentioned.

There have been others banned for their zealous behavior, too, who wouldn't call themselves "preachers", but certainly were doing a lot of condemning and ridiculing.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

like I said earlier 2 left the site this year and 1 in particular was banned.

Yes, I'm aware of who they are. You gave a couple of names, but there are more than just the members you mentioned.

There have been others banned for their zealous behavior, too, who wouldn't call themselves "preachers", but certainly were doing a lot of condemning and ridiculing.

Preachers/evangelists usually are exhorters. What unbelievers would consider a "condemning" voice would mostly fall with the prophetic gifted folks.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

the prophetic gifted folks.

The "self-proclaimed" prophetic 'gifted folks.' And I've known you to call new age thinkers "fringe loonies." But I know you really dig labeling.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

No it's not. Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.

That is not what the Bible says.

The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

---

. . . but rather chose to jump on the judgmental bandwagon and "hell" scapegoat like so many others, because that's a lot easier, isn't it?

Easier than what?
Do you mean easier than . . to be helpful?
He said he fills in to preach at church, so I assumed he was familiar with scripture.
Do I need to quote the verses?
Would that be "helpful"?

he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James 5:20

save others by snatching them out of the fire; . . .
Jude 1:23

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

the prophetic gifted folks.

The "self-proclaimed" prophetic 'gifted folks.' And I've known you to call new age thinkers "fringe loonies." But I know you really dig labeling.

edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: changed "did" to "dig". I meant "dig".

People don't gift themselves. Ephesians 4.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

No it's not. Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.

That is not what the Bible says.

The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

Seems to be belief that is the qualifier above. Baptism is an outward symbolic gesture of the already inward faith. Was the thief on the cross baptized or was he justified by his faith?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

Seems to be belief that is the qualifier above.

No, there is nothing to support that conclusion since it is obvious no one would get baptized if they did not first believe.
Even if they did anyway (got baptized without believing) the baptism would be nullified with God since it would have been a sham.
So the proper conclusion would be that you believe, get baptized, are saved (like the Bible says).
You seem to be an apologist not for Christianity, but some form of pop-culture religion where you don't have to do anything in particular to be saved.

reply to post by jmdewey60

---

I'm not condemning baptism. But it's not a sacrament. It's something in the Bible that people do after they believe. God is not a respecter of persons. If baptism were a requirement for salvation the thief on the cross could not have been saved. Like i said, its what saved people do and should do, but it's only a public demonstration of faith a believer already has. You can't make doctrine out of a single verse, that's terrible contextual theology and hermeneutics. Line upon line, precept upon precept, the entire council of God must be considered when talking about a primary Christian doctrine like Soeteriology.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

Seems to be belief that is the qualifier above.

No, there is nothing to support that conclusion since it is obvious no one would get baptized if they did not first believe.
Even if they did anyway (got baptized without believing) the baptism would be nullified with God since it would have been a sham.
So the proper conclusion would be that you believe, get baptized, are saved (like the Bible says).
You seem to be an apologist not for Christianity, but some form of pop-culture religion where you don't have to do anything in particular to be saved.

edit on 18-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

And btw MILLIONS of Catholic and Protestant babies are baptized yearly without first being believers. When I chose to be baptized in 2008 my mother tried to talk me out of it saying I was baptized as a baby.

Is it possible for an atheist parent to not force the same belief on their children?
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags

At 80 years old, this woman painted what is believed to be the real face of Jesus Christ.
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags

Belief in God/Jesus through Personal experiences.
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags

What was God doing before "In the beginning"?
  Posted 14 days ago with 9 member flags

Stay Out Of HELL.
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

Do Christians really want to Start World War 3?
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags

My Hopeful Reintroduction to God
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags

If every Christian would love God, no one will starve around the world!
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: