The Christian Message

[jaswa]

Now, let's assume there isn't huge schools of philosophy behind the existence of God and similarly there's no validity of the Bible through it being the greatest historical source we have today.

Let's for a moment not worry about these 2 things and let's posit that you accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

EVERYONE has sinned (turned their back on God). In God's eyes nobody is perfect like his son Jesus, therefore we all deserve hell.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

We can't do any works to save ourselves, God has saved us by grace - all we need to do is trust in Jesus to be saved.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

Christ died on the cross for our sins once and for all.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God sent his Son to take the punishment for our sins on the cross, so that we can be made right with God.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

And don't worry, Christ didn't just die for a handful of Jews at the time, or his awesome disciples - Christ's death is sufficient to save EVERYBODY!




Are we in any position to say no to God's offer of salvation, made full in Christ, that we don't deserve?




Personal note: I think that the Bible's historicity more than validates it. I believe what the Scriptures have to say. There's no reason to reject God's offer of salvation. It seems to me that people don't want to hand over their life to Christ - man wants to be king of his own life. Because of this they will make justifications to mold around their denial of Christ, which is growing increasingly easier in this day and age where people (wrongly) think that science has all the answers, etc.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, let's see. My choices are:

A) Go to heaven and get my 72 virgins
B) Go to hell and burn forever

Not a very difficult choice it seems. So I don't know what your point is.



A more pressing question is whether God is in any position to set universal moral rules and make decisions on who goes to hell.

Next thing you know God is going to claim breathing is a sin so he can say that we've all sinned 20 million times in our lives.

We can't do any works to save ourselves, God has saved us by grace - all we need to do is trust in Jesus to be saved.

Really? So I can go around killing people, and as long as I trust in Jesus I'm all good?

 

[Darxmarth23]

Hmmm this reminds me of the "Fallacies in Christianity" discussion in the DH a lonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggg time ago....

@Ballin'

We I'm sure that he has the capacity to. Will he? well no one knows...honestly, if the Qu'ran can be interpreted to justify killing almost any one and commiting kamikaze, then sure, breathing can be a sin to. why not.

 

[jaswa]

Well, let's see. My choices are:

A) Go to heaven and get my 72 virgins
B) Go to hell and burn forever

Not a very difficult choice it seems. So I don't know what your point is.

Wrong religion buddy, I'd like to know your answer though.

A more pressing question is whether God is in any position to set universal moral rules and make decisions on who goes to hell.

As the creator of the universe, and the judge of mankind, I'd say yes. Yes he is in a position to set universal moral rules and accept people into heaven or reject them to hell.

Next thing you know God is going to claim breathing is a sin so he can say that we've all sinned 20 million times in our lives.

And if he did do that (which he has the right to do) then it would add the list of forgivable sins we've racked up in our lifetime. Jesus would atone for our 20million breathing sins too.

Really? So I can go around killing people, and as long as I trust in Jesus I'm all good?

Do you really think somebody that truly loved God would go around just killing people? Jesus sacrifice isn't a 'get out of jail free card' for sin - a biproduct of having Jesus as king of your life would be obeying him and repenting of your sins.

 

[Crimson King]

I can quote the bible too!

'If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

So, if you touch a woman on her period, you are unclean. Also, keep her away from people.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas; and in the rivers; of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the water, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Don't eat shellfish.

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."

Essentially condoning **** by saying that if a man lies with a woman in a city, and she doesn't call for help, she should be stoned to death with the rapists.

It's easy to follow the bible when you pick and choose what you want to follow. There are MANY instances of things we do today that were condoned.

 

[jaswa]

Heads up: not quoting individually because I'm on my phone atm.

Maybe the way they dealt with periods in those days was a bit different... Don't see the big hassle there?

God said not to eat pork, so don't see the problem with no shellfish?

I'd more say that she didn't cry out, would mean she accepted the sexual pleasure instead of getting help, therefore she committed adultery the same as the man and was subject to stoning the same as him.

Nevertheless - we don't follow the laws of the Old Testament anymore, because Jesus has fulfilled the Old Covenant that God had with his people and we are now under the New Covenant in Jesus.

 

[Crimson King]

I see, so it's perfectly fine to use the Old Testament as a prophecy for Jesus to fulfill, but when it comes to laws, we stop there because that's not apart of the prophecy anymore.

That's completely illogical and unfair. If you aren't following a single part of the bible, which is called the Word of God, then either that part should be removed or you are going against the word.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I can quote the bible too!


So, if you touch a woman on her period, you are unclean. Also, keep her away from people.



Don't eat shellfish.



Essentially condoning **** by saying that if a man lies with a woman in a city, and she doesn't call for help, she should be stoned to death with the rapists.

It's easy to follow the bible when you pick and choose what you want to follow. There are MANY instances of things we do today that were condoned.

*Slow clap*

Even Satan can cherrypick scripture. He tried doing it to Jesus during his temptations in the wilderness. Those things you quoted from the book of Leviticus were specific commands to the Israelite nations in ancient times. I advise that you check the Bible a little more closely next time.

By the way, the reason that they would stone the woman to death is that by not crying for help, she didn't try to save herself and therefore was allowing the act, which meant it was basically adultery.

 

[_Keno_]

Nevertheless - we don't follow the laws of the Old Testament anymore, because Jesus has fulfilled the Old Covenant that God had with his people and we are now under the New Covenant in Jesus.

However, homosexuality being an abomination somehow still intact.

Oh yeah, and pedophilia is perfectly alright, us absolute bible followers have no qualms with it.

 

[Nicholas1024]

However, homosexuality being an abomination somehow still intact.

Oh yeah, and pedophilia is perfectly alright, us absolute bible followers have no qualms with it.

The bible (even the new testament on its own) makes it clear that sexual relations are meant to be used only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. Try again.

Edit: Ah, here's a good reference.

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received due penalty for their perversion.

If that's not a condemnation of homosexuality, then I don't know what is.

 

[jaswa]

Well you're wrong, God had an Old Covnenant with his people, then post-Jesus a New Covenant with his people. We follow what the New Testament says - and the Old Testament gives us heaps of history, prophecy, etc. and most of all I think context to know a lot of what he's speaking about.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."

 

[Crimson King]

By not abolishing the law, then it's still entact.

Also, The Ten Commandments come from the Old Testament, but I guess those should be ignored since it was written to the Israelites too, right, Nicholas? Basically, you are saying that stuff Christians still recognize as factual (the Ten Commandments, parts of Leviticus) are valid if it fits their story, and other parts... not so much. Then, you use the New Testament as liberally as possible to make your case for conversion.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The ten commandments, although part of the old covenant, are still excellent tools to point out sinfulness. Look over Jesus's teachings in the gospels that form the new covenant. He says himself that the two most important commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength", and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The first covers Commandments 1 through 3 (No other Gods, no idols, no blasphemy), the second covers commandments 6-10 (Obey your parents, don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't covet). Commandment number 4 (obey the sabbath) is the sole exception.

 

[jaswa]

I see it more as - the law still exists if you want to look over it, but you don't need to follow it since it has all been fulfilled in Jesus, and God has made a New Covenant with man.

And yeah Nicholas is right, love God and your neighbour covers most of the commandments anyways. Interestingly Jesus doesn't "obey the sabbath" so maybe we should follow his example

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

And yeah Nicholas is right, love God and your neighbour covers most of the commandments anyways. Interestingly Jesus doesn't "obey the sabbath" so maybe we should follow his example

Source? I did not know that so I just wish to confirm that. That is kind of sad though, sabbath is awesome. Not sure why you would not practice sabbath if you where allowed to and had a work schedule to fit it.

 

[jaswa]

Source? I did not know that so I just wish to confirm that. That is kind of sad though, sabbath is awesome. Not sure why you would not practice sabbath if you where allowed to and had a work schedule to fit it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 12:1-14&version=NIV

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

The ten commandments, although part of the old covenant, are still excellent tools to point out sinfulness. Look over Jesus's teachings in the gospels that form the new covenant. He says himself that the two most important commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength", and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The first covers Commandments 1 through 3 (No other Gods, no idols, no blasphemy), the second covers commandments 6-10 (Obey your parents, don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't covet). Commandment number 4 (obey the sabbath) is the sole exception.

You're dodging his point. You cannot invalidate parts of the Old Testament yet cherrypick the verses you like to hurl around in argument. Whether or not they are "excellent tools" is irrelevant, as is your reference to the New Testament. Neither of these provide any justification for cherrypicking the 10 Commandments out from among verses that dictate outdated and in some cases disgusting activities.

Well you're wrong, God had an Old Covnenant with his people, then post-Jesus a New Covenant with his people. We follow what the New Testament says - and the Old Testament gives us heaps of history, prophecy, etc. and most of all I think context to know a lot of what he's speaking about.

So are you saying that the Old Testament should not be followed? Now you are making blanket statements about Christianity. There are many denominations and sects that believe in the Old Testament to varying degrees, yet you claim that only the New Testament should be followed, as if YOUR Christianity is the ONLY Christianity. Give me a break and get off your high horse. Your arrogance is sickening.

 

[July]

This is a note I found very interesting, along the lines of what Crimson King was saying: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

My issue with the validity of the Bible is that it is estimated that it was composed into the written word between the 6th century and 8th century BC. That is an entire 500-700 years after the events of the New Testament, and for me to believe that the Bible is accurate, I also have to believe it was indeed divinely inspired (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/written.html). Considering that many of the stories from the Old Testament are similar to the myths of ancient cultures, such as the flood myth which is similarly found in Greek mythology, I find it hard to believe the Bible wasn't the work of men who were influenced by their own culture, oral traditions, and the traditions of other cultures. Other ancient cultures searched for guidance and understanding from higher beings, and I believe the Bible is just a representation of another civilization's search for such guidance. I've always viewed it as a moral guide, not to be taken literally but to show how to live a "good" life.

But on a personal level, I do believe in a higher being and a heaven and hell, but I don't believe in some "ultimate salvation" that believing in Jesus or God can forgive me of all my sins. I feel if you live a life that overall improves the lives of others and you hurt as few people as possible, you deserve salvation, or heaven. But if you murder someone or make peoples' lives a living hell, then I can't believe that turning to God will save you. So...while I think my gay friend is a great person and deserves to go to Heaven, I don't care if Charles Manson prays, praises Jesus, or asks for forgiveness, I can't imagine him receiving salvation.

 

[jaswa]

<Again on my phone>

Sorry if you think I'm being arrogant APNS, but Jesus says he is "the way, the truth and the life - noone comes to the Father except through him." Christianity is exclusive. No we don't cherrypick from the Old Testament, we are not bound by any of the commandments in it since, again... we are under the New Covenant being post-Jesus.

@July - no idea where you're sourcing the New Testaments writing...

Most of the Pauline epistles where written 20yrs after Christs death, and 40-60 years for the gospels, plus another source is believed to have existed within 2yrs after Jesus death and resurrection.

Edit: don't bring this up here though, Nicholas already made a thread a while ago about "Evidence behind the New Testament."

 

[July]

Understood, I was looking at the times when "the ancient Israelite accounts—once conveyed only orally—came to be written down and attain the status of Scripture" and it was taken from an archeological study that my classical studies professor took part in (quote is from the website I originally posted). But my point goes past when it was written; I also wanted to emphasize that the stories of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, draw upon ancient, "pagan" stories (creation stories, the Flood, conception without intercourse) and archetypes (the Mythic Hero, woman's negative role in creation, attempted murder of the hero child). The likenesses between Christian and "pagan" stories were not coincidence, and early Christians knew the stories of Greek and Roman mythology. I see this as just the human adaptation of old stories to fit a new, monotheistic religion; from this, I personally see the Bible as the work of man.

If I believe the Bible is just another myth, then I have no obligation to say yes to God's salvation, or to believe that Jesus was anything more than a historic and inspirational man. And I especially have no obligation to believe in it when it condemns my mom for being divorced and so many of my friends for premarital sex, homosexuality, and of course, atheism.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@July
Here's the thing though. If a bunch of different religions from all over the world have these same stories, isn't it likely that some version of that story is true? The flood, the creation story, cain and abel, Adam and eve, all of that stuff happened pre-Noah. And since Noah and his family were all that was left after that, isn't it possible that they passed down those stories to their descendants, where it got distorted over time? That would explain the similarities.

Also, although the Bible wasn't compiled until 500 or so AD (Not sure of the exact date), the old testament was around for far longer than that. (And the individual books of the new testament were written by 100AD. The Bible is more a list of authoritative books than an authoritative list of books.) The newest book in the old testament (Malachi, I think) was written around 400 BC, before the Jews were conquered by the Greeks and later Romans, and of course long before Christianity was around.

 

[July]

@Nicholas
That chronology of the writing/compilation of the Bible I agree with, and I can even agree maybe the flood and similar events happened, I'm skeptical of the texts as being authoritative. Even if other religions had similar stories because they were true, that means to me that the stories are still the compilations of men rather than a divinely inspired text, and attributing the actions to "God" is just a new way to explain the events instead of using the pantheon of Greek gods.

My rejection of God's salvation comes from my view that the Bible is just the work of man. It was by necessity (because of illiteracy and/or the flood) the compilation of oral traditions, and I have no reason to believe that writers of the Bible were divinely inspired, that the words of God are true, or that the God of the Bible is any more valid than the gods of other religions. I really can't name anyone who considers me an enemy, I try and make peoples' lives better, and if that is not enough to get into heaven, if I really need to believe in God's salvation for that to happen, then I knowingly accept that and choose a nonreligious anyways.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

the stories of Christianity bear very strong resemblance to ancient Pagan sun mythology, and almost undoubtedly finds its roots there. this is one thing that Dan Brown managed to get right at least.

 

[1048576]

Nick and phone dude remind me of this video:

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=47644

I know it's a comedy website, but I think the video is insightful nonetheless. The point is made after the first 4 minutes anyway.