A Prayer Of Salvation (20 Viewers)

[Paddington]

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Cool story bro

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

ETA - Joe addresses this a few posts down

 

[kupcho1]

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven

It's not possible to doubt whether or not I'm going to a fictitious place.

I also don't have doubts about whether or not I'll ever go to Narnia, Westeros or the Upside Down since those are also fictitious locations.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

Multiple.

 

[ChiefD]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

Multiple.

I can bearly keep up with them.

 

[Northern Voice]

"The Official FBG Top 70 Fiction Books of All Time" being linked below as a similar thread is a bit on the nose IMO.

 

[Desert_Power]

"The Official FBG Top 70 Fiction Books of All Time" being linked below as a similar thread is a bit on the nose IMO.

Just noticed that too

 

[dkp993]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

Multiple.

I can bearly keep up with them.

Almost as many of these Paddington’s threads as there are music ranking threads. All are relentlessly monotonous.

 

[Paddington]

Every single thread I had has been closed, so no, this is the only thread.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

LEAVE @Paddington ALONE!

 

[dkp993]

LEAVE @Paddington ALONE!

Aaaaa, what??

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"The Official FBG Top 70 Fiction Books of All Time" being linked below as a similar thread is a bit on the nose IMO.

Who knew that A.I. had such a sense of humor.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I told him he was not allowed to continue the cut and paste threads he's put across other forums. And multiple times here.

We are not a wall where people post flyers for their event.

We're a place where we discuss things and have community.

I told him if he could post like that and have a civil discussion, he could post again. Same as I would for anyone.

Please keep this civil without being uncool.

 

[SWC]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

Multiple.

I can bearly keep up with them.

honey i know what you mean take that to the bank brobeaero

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

Great post. My thoughts on religion threads here is similar to girls in yoga pants. Plenty of other places on the internet for that, I don’t need to see it here

When I see threads like this pop up it feels like when I get a knock on the door by someone peddling their religion (or trying to sell me siding or cable TV).

Sure I don’t have to answer, but I think similar to politics it’s best to just not allow that kind of stuff around here

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

It’s almost like the old adage about not discussing politics or religion is true.

 

[Zow]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

I don't find Paddington to be so much offensive but, instead, incredibly arrogant to think that one human has all the answers to very difficult questions and others don't.

Of course, the counterpoint to mine is that if a person like Paddington truly believes that God is that wretched that God would send us to eternal damnation simply for a human choosing in good faith not to follow God's narrow rules, then it could be perceived as a kind thing whereby he is trying to help others out to avoid to wrath of a certainly vengeful, spiteful God.

 

[Captain Cranks]

It’s almost like the old adage about not discussing politics or religion is true.

I'm not against religious conversations, and they've occurred civilly here despite living in Paddington's 'you need to change' threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

It absolutely should fly as a civil discussion if you kept it a civil discussion. We've done that here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Dude I’m all for what you’re preaching but don’t you already have a thread?

Multiple.

I can bearly keep up with them.

Almost as many of these Paddington’s threads as there are music ranking threads. All are relentlessly monotonous.

This is the only thread here open from him.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

 

[MTskibum]

Of course, the counterpoint to mine is that if a person like Paddington truly believes that God is that wretched that God would send us to eternal damnation simply for a human choosing in good faith not to follow God's narrow rules, then it could be perceived as a kind thing whereby he is trying to help others out to avoid to wrath of a certainly vengeful, spiteful God.

I assume most people that aren't making money from teaching Christianity fall into this bucket. They genuinely want to help people avoid hell and get into heaven. Nothing wrong with that.

People like Joel Osteen on the other-hand. Anyone willing to take that much money from people who need it more than them............ They can't be good people.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

But why do you feel the need to share?

And how do you judge if you think someone needs a “better way”? And why does religion need to be involved in that betterment? It often comes across as “im better than you because of have religion in my life and you don’t”

There’s a clothing company I bought a shirt from at a concert. I don’t feel the need to name drop them, I bought the shirt because I liked it but I asked a little more about them

Summarizing their values

“We are firm believers that you don't need God or any organized belief system in order to be a good person.

To be kind to all man and animal kind, and do positive things for others.

we live by the ethos of kindness, gratitude, and positivity.

We celebrate self-empowerment, self-expression, and all aspects of life that encourage personal freedom.”

 

[Captain Cranks]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

For me, any dialogue will be met with "not interested". The only times when being religious is appealing is when I see it's affecting their actions positively.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

But why do you feel the need to share?

And how do you judge if you think someone needs a “better way”? And why does religion need to be involved in that betterment? It often comes across as “im better than you because of have religion in my life and you don’t”

There’s a clothing company I bought a shirt from at a concert. I don’t feel the need to name drop them, I bought the shirt because I liked it but I asked a little more about them

Summarizing their values

“We are firm believers that you don't need God or any organized belief system in order to be a good person.

To be kind to all man and animal kind, and do positive things for others.

we live by the ethos of kindness, gratitude, and positivity.

We celebrate self-empowerment, self-expression, and all aspects of life that encourage personal freedom.”

Because Jesus said so, duh.

Matthew 28:19

 

[Joe Bryant]

But why do you feel the need to share?

Because I care about them.

It's as Penn Jillette said, "How much must you hate that other person not to tell them?"

 

[Psychopav]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

 

[Max Power]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

But why do you feel the need to share?

And how do you judge if you think someone needs a “better way”? And why does religion need to be involved in that betterment? It often comes across as “im better than you because of have religion in my life and you don’t”

There’s a clothing company I bought a shirt from at a concert. I don’t feel the need to name drop them, I bought the shirt because I liked it but I asked a little more about them

Summarizing their values

“We are firm believers that you don't need God or any organized belief system in order to be a good person.

To be kind to all man and animal kind, and do positive things for others.

we live by the ethos of kindness, gratitude, and positivity.

We celebrate self-empowerment, self-expression, and all aspects of life that encourage personal freedom.”

People pushing religion in an "I'm better than you" way are doing it wrong. I'm sure some actually feel that way, but those people are missing the point IMO. I believe opening the door and exposing people to religion is a good thing. I'm also fully on board with people expressing no interest and moving along without being hassled about it. I did that for most of my life.

I share the same values as the company you referenced outlined. Someone can be an amazing person without religion in their life. Everyone gets to walk their own path. I believe a person ends up in the place they deserve regardless of what their worshiping practices are.

I also feel there are a lot of people who are ethically, morally and spiritually lost in the world. Sharing a lifeline has the potential to help someone find something missing in their life. If a person is ethically and morally fulfilled, I am happy for them and don't feel they should be pressured to follow organized religion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

For me, any dialogue will be met with "not interested". The only times when being religious is appealing is when I see it's affecting their actions positively.

Understood.

For the "affecting their actions positively" I think that's how lots of people see it. It's what I mean about presenting the message well. I think one does better talking about how my faith has helped me more and less about how others are wrong.

It's the "Be known for what you're for more than what you're against" idea.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

Maybe we can get back to that.

 

[pecorino]

I have no problem with the statements made by the original poster even if they are duplicative of ones in the past. I'm having a tough time with the inconsistent capitalization of "you" versus "You" but maybe I need to brush up on my grammar rules.

 

[Joe Bryant]

People pushing religion in an "I'm better than you" way are doing it wrong.

Absolutely.

If that's how it's heard, that's a poor job from the person speaking.

 

[dgreen]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

What's your understanding of Sola Scriptura? I feel like people use that phrase differently today than how it was used in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm curious how you see it. You're Catholic, right?

 

[Captain Cranks]

I also feel there are a lot of people who are ethically, morally and spiritually lost in the world.

I agree although there's a large religiously-based movement that I'd argue this pertains to. In this case the dogma is outshining the ethics/morality.

 

[dgreen]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

I think it would depend on who said it and how it was said, which I think is obviously also true of the religious messages that are shared.

What would be the steps that you'd lay out for a return to reality?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Despite being a curmudgeon, and not a believer in the same way the folks in this thread are, this has always made sense to me:

• Matthew 5:16 (NIV):
  .
  "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven".

The best way to witness your faith is through the life you lead. Are you at peace? Content? Resilient after a crisis? Faithful to the people in your life? Accepting of others as human beings? Do you fight against obvious injustice, or excuse it? Do you look the other way, or fail to recognize them, when you see evil deeds?

Someone who can't answer those questions well doesn't really have a whole lot to offer as far as faith goes IMO, no matter what they say they believe.

 

[Mookie]

If, like me, you find these threads offensive and/or tiresome, just ignore it in hopes of relegating it to page 2 ASAP.

 

[Max Power]

I also feel there are a lot of people who are ethically, morally and spiritually lost in the world.

I agree although there's a large religiously-based movement that I'd argue this pertains to. In this case the dogma is outshining the ethics/morality.

Which movement is that?

 

[SWC]

my thing is this when i was young old father nick really hammered that none of us can truly know gods will because we aint him and that god acts intentionally and does not make mistakes so when i hear people trying to use religion to tell people they are wrong for stuff like sexual preference or being the wrong political stripe etc i just sort of recoil because it goes against the most fundamental things i was taught and seems a lot like people pretending to be god and accusing god of making mistakes old nick and the bible study groups i have been to all teach that the bible is love and that the main message of the bible is gods love of man and that we should all try to live as an example of love but brohans too many times i see people acting under the banner of religion and it aint with love take that to the bank

 

[dgreen]

For trying to share faith, I completely understand the desire and feel it as well.

It's natural if you truly believe there is a better way for people, the honorable thing is to tell people.

We've talked about it here, but Penn Jillette, who is an Athiest, has a good example here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
beinzee

It's much easier to choose approval from the masses or not to present things you see as uncomfortable truths in the guise of "getting along".

But it's also a balance.

For the message to be heard well, it has to be presented in a way where people will listen.

For me, any dialogue will be met with "not interested". The only times when being religious is appealing is when I see it's affecting their actions positively.

I think this gets at the shallowness of the typical salvation message. Saved people are supposed to be changed people. "I'm still a horrible person but at least I'm saved" is much less compelling than "I'm saved and look at how it has changed who I am" which is so much more appealing.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What would be the steps that you'd lay out for a return to reality?

Step 1. Do some LSD
Step 2. .....

Just joking (kind of)

I'd recommend that most religious people educate themselves on other religions. Understand their histories, their ethics, traditions, how they were derived and why. Also do a deeper dive on the historical context of their own religion. Who created it? Why did they create it? How has it changed over time? Does it borrow from other religions that predate it? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, adjust for confirmation bias.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

It’s almost like the old adage about not discussing politics or religion is true.

Only one of those are allowed here - even though both can be just as contentious and neither side is ever going to be convinced by anything said in the discussions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

It’s almost like the old adage about not discussing politics or religion is true.

Only one of those are allowed here - even though both can be just as contentious and neither side is ever going to be convinced by anything said in the discussions.

Correct. As much as I wanted to, as did many of you as well, we proved clearly we couldn't do political threads.

I hope we can continue to do the occasional thread on religion and faith.

As far as "neither side is ever going to be convinced by anything said in the discussions.", I know for me personally, I've benefited very much from the discussions here over the years.

 

[dgreen]

What would be the steps that you'd lay out for a return to reality?

Step 1. Do some LSD
Step 2. .....

Just joking (kind of)

I'd recommend that most religious people educate themselves on other religions. Understand their histories, their ethics, traditions, how they were derived and why. Also do a deeper dive on the historical context of their own religion. Who created it? Why did they create it? How has it changed over time? Does it borrow from other religions that predate it? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, adjust for confirmation bias.

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

 

[Captain Cranks]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

 

[dkp993]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

Maybe we can get back to that.

Respectfully, the 27 other (being hyperbolic as I haven’t actually counted) threads started on this and all been shut down, have proven otherwise.

I respect and appreciate you Joe for the place you prove here for all of us but this is the only topic you allow this endless marry-go-round (start a thread, discuss for a while, goes sideways, gets shuttered) to continue to propagate.

 

[dkp993]

If, like me, you find these threads offensive and/or tiresome, just ignore it in hopes of relegating it to page 2 ASAP.

Agreed, but that’s not the philosophy of the board. If it were we’d have political discussions, along with a myriad of others, too. But we don’t.

 

[Desert_Power]

If, like me, you find these threads offensive and/or tiresome, just ignore it in hopes of relegating it to page 2 ASAP.

Just to point out to folks that the ignore function, currently, would also ignore the threads started by that member.