The Gospel of Jesus Christ

[N1c2k3]

I've been around the forums for a while. I know back in the day I would debate with Snex and co. about religion, etc. I never really follow the debate hall regularly, but I don't think I've ever seen a clear, concise presentation of what the gospel message is here on the boards, which is, in my opinion, a telling sign of today's Christianity. I assume there has been, just saying I haven't seen it, so I want to give what I believe to be an accurate representation of the gospel.

The message is this:
God alone is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. At one time God made the earth, and all that is in it, including the first humans. He gave them the ability to choose (free will). They chose to disobey his commands. Therefore, man was cursed with a completely sinful nature, which God said would be passed on to ALL his generations. Therefore, we have ALL sinned against God and in our true hearts hated and despised him from the time we are born. All we have ever done and ever do apart from his Grace is sin, and for that we ALL deserve Hell. If God is just (and He is), then the only verdict that a just God can deliver in response to disobedience is punishment for our guilty status, which is an eternity of wrath, torment, separation from Him.

The good news is this!
God sent his son, Jesus, here to earth to live among men and to save all who truly believe on Him. He lived a perfect and sinless life. But He was rejected by the very people he came to save. He was slandered, beaten, crucified and died on a cross. In doing so, God crushed Him with all the sins of those who would believe from past, present, and future. He suffered the punishment that we rightly deserve. He atoned for our sins, paid our debts, because we have nothing to offer God as an acceptable payment for sin. Therefore, with Christ as our mediator, God has legally declared us justified to Him. All that is required of you is to repent and believe. If you do that, He will bestow the same grace to you. He will change you. And he will perfect you unto the day of redemption, where you will be glorified. THAT is the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is that simple.

Christ took my punishment. I have been saved from the wrath to come. Now I am part of the inheritance of the kindgom, and one day I will enter into heaven and reign with Him for eternity. How about you?

Consider the cost.

I would also like to link you to a video. It is by a man named Paul Washer, a pastor/missionary/speaker. It is from a sermon preached to a church a few years back on the gospel message. Most of his messages tend to center around the gospel. He has particularly taken a strong stance against the rising tendencies of the modern American church, their methodologies (such as the sinner's prayer), and how it is being influenced by our culture, instead of the opposite. His teachings and strong fervency to see the true gospel message preached has strengthened me greatly and helped to give me new resolve in my walk with Christ.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7X24_vOWwU


If this is the first time you're hearing this and are stirred by it, or have any questions or just want to talk, feel free to PM me or AIM me. I would love to talk with you.

Now, I understand this is a debate hall. I'm not as much attempting to pose a certain question more than I am trying to possibly establish a solid foundation for myself and those who would also call themselves Christians for future questions/debate. I linked to the video because I could repeat everything that is said, but it saves a lot of time and is said better there. I would encourage everyone to watch the video as well. Some of those who are opposed to the ideals of Christianity and God might find something they might not have heard before which hopefully would lead to questions/thoughts.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Ocean]

is this thread serious? this is the debate hall, not sunday mass. take it somewhere else, or provide an actual topic to discuss, rather than evangelical babble.

 

[ciaza]

I don't think he is trying to push his message down our throats, he's just stating what his message is which I like. I'd also commend him for trying to invoke some discussion/debate on the topic in a mature way.

The question I pose, Nick (may I call you that?), is why do you believe in this message?

Ah, I should point out that I did not watch that 1 hour + video, sorry.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ocean, be civil, he's simply trying to establish ground rules for what Christians believe, and I support him doing so. If you (or anyone else) wants to make a debate, why not point out a reason why you don't believe in Christianity and work along those lines instead of just trying to tear his post down? (I mean a serious argument, the first person that tries to troll with stuff like "God is for morons", I'm going to report.)

@N1c2k3
Thanks for posting. It's been a while since I've seen another Christian in the debate hall/proving grounds. I should warn you that videos (particularly really long ones) are unlikely to be watched by debaters, so it's best to summarize the argument in thread if possible. Anyway, IIRC there hasn't been a thread that basically debates the case for Christianity as a whole, but there have been threads (long dead, I'm afraid) regarding smaller aspects in the past, such as my old Evidence behind the New Testament Thread (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=288874)

@ciaza
I COULD answer that question (I know it's not addressed to me), but that would likely turn this into a repeat of the topic I linked above.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I'm not looking forward to this.

 

[Ocean]

I don't think he is trying to push his message down our throats, he's just stating what his message is which I like. I'd also commend him for trying to invoke some discussion/debate on the topic in a mature way.

I didn't think he was trying to push it down own throats either.
I don't see how he was trying to invoke discussion though. saying "here is what I believe!" isn't invoking discussion or debate, unless you're baiting people who disagree with you.

Ocean, be civil, he's simply trying to establish ground rules for what Christians believe, and I support him doing so.

but it's unnecessary. not all christians believe the same thing, and I guarantee that everyone here has a solid idea of the message of the gospel.

 

[_Keno_]

It still baffles me how people can think that wanting something you don't have (commandment 10) is evil enough to deserve eternal pain and suffering. Heck, the average person doesn't think murder deserves that in reality (no cruel and unusual punishment?) Yet God can send bears to tear children to shreds if they make fun of his friend's lack of hair.

Of course, God is just and good too.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I didn't think he was trying to push it down own throats either.
I don't see how he was trying to invoke discussion though. saying "here is what I believe!" isn't invoking discussion or debate, unless you're baiting people who disagree with you.


but it's unnecessary. not all christians believe the same thing, and I guarantee that everyone here has a solid idea of the message of the gospel.

Oh trust me, ANY mention of Christianity (or even just religion in general) can attract discussion, just wait until B*P*C comes (*'s to avoid name search)

It still baffles me how people can think that wanting something you don't have (commandment 10) is evil enough to deserve eternal pain and suffering. Heck, the average person doesn't think murder deserves that in reality (no cruel and unusual punishment?) Yet God can send bears to tear children to shreds if they make fun of his friend's lack of hair.

Of course, God is just and good too.

God is just, that's the point. He's more or less an eternal judge, and we're in trouble for having broken the law. Regardless of what good deeds we've done, that doesn't make up for our law breaking. (Try using that defense in a court of law on earth, "Yes I killed that woman, but I'm a good person! I give money to the poor!" You're still headed to jail.) So, the central message of the gospel is that God sent His Son Christ to live a perfect life, and pay the penalty himself. And people refusing that offer are basically cussing God out and telling Him they'd rather burn than accept said forgiveness and mercy.

And by the way, in the bear incident you're referring to, it wasn't just a few harmless kids, it was a gang of teenagers yelling threats, at least 40-some strong.

(By the way, another misconception: Hell is not a one size fits all punishment. True, everyone who doesn't believe in God will go there, but the Bible teaches that the punishment will be worse or lighter depending on the relative sins of each person.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh trust me, ANY mention of Christianity (or even just religion in general) can attract discussion, just wait until B*P*C comes (*'s to avoid name search)

The bad news for you is, I also namesearch what my girlfriend calls me in bed, and that happens to be Jesus.

Regarding the topic: no real questions asked, no real proof provided, simply a lot of empty assertions based on a bronze-age book of fairy tales, a quick appeal to Pascal's incredibly fallacious wager... What's the debate here? I could easily make a thread entitled "This is what Scientologists Believe", and it would have as much validity as this one. We're (mostly ^) smart people here; preaching isn't going to get you anywhere. So I'll just leave it at "what's the debate", with a side order of "I think this thread is dumb".

 

[Ocean]

finite crime does not deserve infinite torture.

 

[_Keno_]

God is just, that's the point. He's more or less an eternal judge, and we're in trouble for having broken the law. Regardless of what good deeds we've done, that doesn't make up for our law breaking. (Try using that defense in a court of law on earth, "Yes I killed that woman, but I'm a good person! I give money to the poor!" You're still headed to jail.) So, the central message of the gospel is that God sent His Son Christ to live a perfect life, and pay the penalty himself. And people refusing that offer are basically cussing God out and telling Him they'd rather burn than accept said forgiveness and mercy.

If God does exist, he is making his existence a guessing game. No proof, defies logic, etc. As far as I'm concerned, your particular God has a story as unlikely and as unlogical as the next.

And by the way, in the bear incident you're referring to, it wasn't just a few harmless kids, it was a gang of teenagers yelling threats, at least 40-some strong.

Source?
And even if it were teens instead of kids, and threats instead of jokes, does that still follow that all the teens should die? If so, then I suppose we shouldn't have jails anymore. In a world where God does exist, every single person should be executed for sinning.

(By the way, another misconception: Hell is not a one size fits all punishment. True, everyone who doesn't believe in God will go there, but the Bible teaches that the punishment will be worse or lighter depending on the relative sins of each person.)

I've not seen this one before either, I was always told all sins are equal in the eyes of God. I dont doubt that I could very well be wrong, but I'd like to see why Christians should believe that, if you dont mind.

 

[Dre89]

The bad news for you is, I also namesearch what my girlfriend calls me in bed

You namesearch pin-****?

 

[ciaza]

Rude xD.

Dre. come to BAM in Melbourne this weekend. Or at least show up to a Sydney tournament/meet at some point.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Can I fake believing in Christ and be certain of eternal salvation anyway?

 

[_Keno_]

I hope so, I work in a church and 80% of the people I know think I'm Christian, and a shining example of one at that. Makes life in Alabama easier and less pesterful.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Hello. Can you clarfiy something for me please? I'm not looking to cause trouble or anything, I just want an answer.

When you say that Jesus died for our sins, what exactly do you mean by this? Can you perhaps elaborate?

 

[Sucumbio]

*sigh*

I don't want to start infracting people, I do it so very little, and the PG and its members should feel open to discuss anything, so please please try to adhere to the global rules. No one-liners, no derails, etc. Thanks in advance.

Oh and for Christ's sake disable your sigs in the PG! ><

OT: I'm glad to see a Christian who actually knows what's up. It is believed, and most importantly by the Catholics, that God did send his only son to die on the Cross, so that all mankind could be free from [original] Sin. It should also be noted that it is believed that before his crucifixion, the gates to Heaven were -closed- to all souls that had perished before then, and that they had been in Limbo, specifically the "Limbo of our Fathers", but that after his descending into Hell, and subsequent ascension into Heaven, the gates opened, and will remain open for all time thereafter.

And no, not believing in God is NOT an automatic go-to-hell scenario. If you die before you affirm your faith in God, you are more likely to go to Limbo. This applies to many groups of people including unbaptized infants, for instance.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You namesearch pin-****?

I will hurt you.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

You namesearch pin-****?

I will hurt you.

Great example for the PG, guys.

This is how all debaters at SWF should post.

 

[Dre89]

I will hurt you.

I was just kidding, but whatever you do to me, I hope it doesn't involve that pin of yours.

Ok I have a question for the religious people here. Eternal communion with God is that which is most desirable, and that is what Christians devote their lives to achieving. But God wants us to sacrifice desirable things, so wouldn't sacrificing one's eternal communion with God be the most self-less sacrifice of them all?

The best scenario where this would be relevant is in the classic "do you kill one person to save six" dilemma. Alot of Christians think that actively killing the one person is wrong, because to them preserving their moral goodness and chances of Heaven is more important than saving the lives of other people. So in this case, wouldn't killing the one person, and technically committing a mortal sin that will send you to Hell upon death so that six others can live, be the most self-less sacrifice one can do?

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Cheap Peach
Well in the incident you were referring to, the bears killed 42 of them. Therefore there were at least that many of the youths, and quite possibly more. (2 Kings 2:24)

As far as the varying level of punishment goes, that's from one of Jesus's parables, Luke 12:47-48.

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

@Ocean
Considering that basically all we need to do to avoid said punishment is more or less say "I'm sorry, please forgive me.", that makes said infinite punishment self-inflicted. (Plus, one could argue that refusing the infinite love of God is an infinite crime.) I'd recommend reading C.S. Lewis's novel "The Great Divorce" for an interesting take on how this might work.

@DRE
The Bible condemns murder, not killing in self defense, there's a marked difference. So personally, if a terrorist or something was threatening a bunch of innocent people and I had the opportunity to prevent said crime by killing the terrorist, I would definitely do so. Yes, this probably dooms said terrorist to Hell, but if you let him carry out said crime, who knows how many of his victims would go to Hell as well?

Also, sacrifice is a means to an end (helping your neighbor, for instance). For an example, sacrificing by giving $4000 to a friend in need is admirable, sacrificing by tossing $4000 into a fire is just stupid. The point shouldn't be you sacrificing, the point should be how someone else benefits from said sacrifice. So sacrificing your place in heaven could never possibly come into play. However, I'm pretty sure that in one of his letters, the apostle Paul (can't find the reference right now, unfortunately) offered to sacrifice his salvation for the salvation of the rest of the Jews (which when you think about it, is pretty incredible. Of course, salvation is a personal decision, so said offer can't really be acted upon, but still...) Hope this answers your question.

 

[Battlecow]

And no, not believing in God is NOT an automatic go-to-hell scenario. If you die before you affirm your faith in God, you are more likely to go to Limbo. This applies to many groups of people including unbaptized infants, for instance.

Way to assume that Christianity = Catholicism >__>

Also- GLHF, Nick. There's nothing your average atheist likes better than being an "intellectual," because biologically, he has about 10x the average human capacity for smugness. Debate Halls are, therefore, notorious watering holes for the more vicious varieties.

Also, sacrifice is a means to an end (helping your neighbor, for instance). For an example, sacrificing by giving $4000 to a friend in need is admirable, sacrificing by tossing $4000 into a fire is just stupid. The point shouldn't be you sacrificing, the point should be how someone else benefits from said sacrifice. So sacrificing your place in heaven could never possibly come into play. However, I'm pretty sure that in one of his letters, the apostle Paul (can't find the reference right now, unfortunately) offered to sacrifice his salvation for the salvation of the rest of the Jews (which when you think about it, is pretty incredible. Of course, salvation is a personal decision, so said offer can't really be acted upon, but still...) Hope this answers your question.

I don't think you quite understand the biblical concept of sacrifice. The act of sacrifice in and of itself is and was held to hold some power- tossing a ram onto the flames, for instance, is just as much of a waste as tossing the four grand. The fact that it is a waste is what gives it some of its perceived power.

 

[Dre89]

Battlecow is right about the sacrifices, just look at the story of Job.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@DRE/Battlecow
Good point, but I think my point still holds. The point of the Ram sacrifice wasn't just to meaninglessly butcher an animal, it was a sin offering to God. That is to say, the focus on the sacrifice is what it achieves (which depending on the offering might have ranged from an "I'm sorry, God" to "Thank you Lord", kind of like giving God a gift, so to speak), not what you sacrificed.

Regarding Job, sacrifice isn't the point of the story, he definitely didn't volunteer to lose all his wealth, servants, and children. Rather than sacrifice that's more about dealing with the problems you'd encounter here on earth, and why God let's them happen.

Also- GLHF, Nick. There's nothing your average atheist likes better than being an "intellectual," because biologically, he has about 10x the average human capacity for smugness. Debate Halls are, therefore, notorious watering holes for the more vicious varieties.

Trust me, I've experienced the "fun" of that sort of debate quite a bit on these boards, but I keep coming back regardless. (It's like the debate version of IWBTG!)

 

[Dre89]

But Nic if sacrificing a lamb isn't a waste, then neither is sacrificing by tossing $4 000 into a fire, which undermines your point. Neither of those have any utility outside spirituality.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the point of sacrifice is to benefit someone else, whether that's your neighbor or God. If you believe that God has commanded you to sacrifice by tossing said $4000 into a fire, knock yourself out. However, I'd argue that it'd be a much better use of that $4000 by putting it towards charity. (I'd also like to note that back in the old testament such offerings were commanded as sin offerings and such, as a stopgap before Jesus's death on the cross, so that sort of offering is not needed now.)

 

[Dre89]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the point of sacrifice is to benefit someone else, whether that's your neighbor or God. If you believe that God has commanded you to sacrifice by tossing said $4000 into a fire, knock yourself out. However, I'd argue that it'd be a much better use of that $4000 by putting it towards charity. (I'd also like to note that back in the old testament such offerings were commanded as sin offerings and such, as a stopgap before Jesus's death on the cross, so that sort of offering is not needed now.)

Looking at this argument I think you've lost sight of what my initial question was, because you've actually changed your argument to agree with me, rather than contest me as you initially did.

My initial question was that in the "do you kill one to save six" scenario, that wouldn't killing one, saving six, but subsequently sacrificing your eternal communion with God be the greatest sacrifice of all, and should be committed seeing as sacrifice is desirable.

With your last post you've changed your argument to saying that sacrifice is used to benefit others, well killing one to save six is benefitting others, at the expense of the greatest sacrifice one can make- their eternal communion with God.

 

[_Keno_]

@Cheap Peach
Well in the incident you were referring to, the bears killed 42 of them. Therefore there were at least that many of the youths, and quite possibly more. (2 Kings 2:24)

As far as the varying level of punishment goes, that's from one of Jesus's parables, Luke 12:47-48.

I dont see how a higher number of youths makes it alright for them to die. In fact, it only makes God's crime more atrocious.
And as far as I've read, the youths havent been rowdy or life-threatening in any way. Just made fun of him for being bald. If you source something saying that they were, I'll check it out.

As for the verse, it only refers to two levels. One of ill intent, and one not of ill intent.

 

[Sucumbio]

Way to assume that Christianity = Catholicism >__>

Well obviously I was implying that Catholicism is the truest form of Christianity and so for any Religious discussion I will always cite stances formulated on their doctrine.

 

[Dre89]

Well obviously I was implying that Catholicism is the truest form of Christianity and so for any Religious discussion I will always cite stances formulated on their doctrine.

That's a pretty big call to make.

What I would say was that Catholicism was the first denomination, and the only one who believes in both Tradition and Scripture, whereas the rest are Scripture exclusive. Also, the Bible was compiled by St. Irinaeus, who was a Catholic.

 

[Battlecow]

Well obviously I was implying that Catholicism is the truest form of Christianity and so for any Religious discussion I will always cite stances formulated on their doctrine.

Not sure if serious.

 

[Dre89]

Not sure if serious.

If you find that claim ridiculous, you should show why you think that, unless you're a Battlecoward.

Smashes him.

 

[Battlecow]

Why I think that? Well, as an atheist, why does he hold an opinion as to whether one religion is "truer" or "purer" than another? What does that even mean?

Pretty sure he's not serious though.

 

[Theftz22]

Perhaps he means something like this:

Yes, it's true that each given proposition is either true or false. And while different strains of Christianity all hold to certain core propositions such as "god exists" which I hold to be equally false, different theologies affirm many propositions. Among those, Catholicism holds the most true propositions and the least false ones.

 

[Battlecow]

He pretty clearly meant "True and pure" as in "true to the core of christianity/to what christianity should be" not as in "factually correct."

 

[Sucumbio]

He pretty clearly meant "True and pure" as in "true to the core of christianity/to what christianity should be" not as in "factually correct."

Actually, underdogs is correct, sorry if I wasn't clear. For all intents and purposes Catholicism is the original Christian Church -source

It is also the largest. -source

That's not to say might makes right, it just goes to show that more people are convinced that Catholicism is the way to go.

Not to mention that Protestants are by direct admission, not of the original faith, but owe their version of Christianity to a period of offshoot reformations. -source

SO, if it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I'm going to be talking about, you're darn right I'm going to cite Catholic doctrine, because anything else would be automatically tainted by inaccuracy due to the fact that it's based on a partial truth (EVEN if you're talking about that partiality being 90% like the original, as is the case with Episcopalian, for example.)

 

[Battlecow]

Underdogs: He meant true as in objectively, factually correct

Me: No, he meant true as in more purely "christian" and closer to the "actual" gospel of Jesus Christ

You: Underdogs is right. Look at all this stuff about how Catholicism is the "original" and "untainted" faith, and how more people believe it.

Me: *facepalm*

OK, so leaving that behind, you seem to be working with a very sketchy knowledge of how christianity works. An outsider or Catholic might say "Oh hey, one church is the original, one church is an offshoot, it's a no-brainer," but, in point of fact, the Catholic church's beliefs are built on an aggregation of thousands of years of tradition, and the protestant denominations largely see themselves as a reversion to an original truth, and closer to the "first" church (i.e. the church of Jesus's disciples) than the Catholics by far. the tl;dr there is that the Catholics take basic christian beliefs and then add a bunch of **** to them over the course of thousands of years.

At any rate, value-judging religions you're not a part of like that is the height of silly. "tainted by inaccuracy"? Seriously?

Furthermore, dollars to donuts that Nick is a protestant (probably "non-denominational," but that's still protestant). Which means that citing Catholic doctrine because it's true-er makes about as much sense as going into a debate about whether Islam is an evil religion and saying that it is, because Zoroastrians (who believe in a truer religion than Islam) believe that (insert ridiculous belief here).

 

[Sokr]

Battlecow is correct. The catholic church was largely influenced over the years by money, power, and polotics. The protestants looked at the bible and found out that the catholic church was doing numerous things that weren't in the bible and separated. Also, catholocism is largely a birthright type of thing and many who are catholic were born into it and don't necessarily fully believe in it.

 

[Theftz22]

I only said that it's possible (epistemically) that he meant that.

 

[Battlecow]

True enough. Reasonable thing to say. I just have beef with the fact that he said you were right and then went on to reiterate what I had said he was saying.