Why did Jesus die for our sins?

February 6, 2006

I probably should have posted these seperately as they really represented 2 different ideas and, unfortunately they did get a bit muddled.

in responce to the above I mentioned it thinking about the comments of one of my co workers after 911 stating that those who jumped, would go to hell for commiting suicide.
My personaly take on it is that a situation as chaotic as that is difficult to make such a statement on, given the intense heat, smoke etc.
It is like these hypothetical "justifications" for sin, and rejection of salvation, we don't always know what is in someone elses heart, only God can.

IT seems difficult, but not theologically impossible. What does the Bible have to say on matters like this? If you kill yourself before your time, and you are going to die in like 10 seconds anyway, is that really suicide? Don't you have to be responsible for your actions in order to sin? I believe one of the defination of sin is you have to have an evil thought, that thought has to germinate into an action, according to the book of James. That is 'sin'.

Without a meditative thought and just a frienzied action, it is not sin.

People who kill themselves, really THINK about what they are doing before they do it. And, incidentally, criminal law is based on this concept too. Without a guilty intent, there is no crime. The people that jumped out the buildings in 9/11, as acting in a state of panic, could not be held liable for their actions of jumping out the building before burning to death.

God Gives, and takes away life, as Christians, if we "speed up the process" we are not obeying him, we are following our own will not his

But, it could also be argued, that keeping people alive artificially is unnatural, and therefore you are actually 'slowing up the process'. How does that factor?

Insanity is debateable I am uncomfortable with giving it too much power, in that much of its credibility is from psychology a decidedly atheistic/satanic view of things.

As I said before, you need to have a guilty mind or intent when you are sinning. As you said God knows the heart, the mind, and the intent. That's why pretty much every sin doesn't just occur at the spur of the moment.

You can even sin without a guilty action, with just a guilty thought. So, thoughts, meditation and thinking about sinning are a sin in itself, and are necessary for sin.

Insanity would suppose there is no thought, mediation or intent to sin - to do something wrong. But, the Bible would phrase this as an 'unintentional sin' that would still need atonement.

I have seen it so I know it exist, but I would not say that it is always a medical condition, as I believe that many of the false religions that now exist, are straight from the lips of demons. Remember God is not the author of confusion, and what is insanity but confusion?

We are just dealing with what constitutes a sin. If someone has sinned, how do they know they have sinned?

as to how God will judge them, I believe he is fair, in all his judgement in ways we are incapable of, and in cases where the scripture is vague, or does not clearly have an example, or "type of example" (IE drunkenness, can be easily equated with drug use) then I leave it up to his judgement, because we are unable to see things from his perspective

However, HotCaliGirl may need some clarification concerning scriptures that may imply or state between the lines that people who never heard the Gospel, or otherwise reject Christ, go to hell, even if they were Mother Theresa or Ghandi, just as Hitler and Stalin would.

How would you reconcile a second death to everyone who has never accepted Christ on people who have led reasonable good or even exempliary lives? Do you think that is what the Bible is saying in reference to the Gospel of John and Romans?

February 6, 2006

CORRECTION:

An above post had said the Spirit has prohited the Apostels to speak in India is revoked as incorrect and taken back as scriptural error.

Acts 16:6: "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were FORBIDDEN BY THE HOLY GHOST to preach the word in Asia".

Asia was meant instead of India. They were forbidden to speak in Asia. But there were Asian converts in the book of Acts.

The Bible says that God wills for EVERYONE to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, how that will is actualised or if it can be actualised is left to speculation.

The will of God may not always happen because God has given humans power over the earth, and has to respect the boundaries, so He has to use humans to carry out His Will and Mission. That is why Christians have to pray and spread the word.

February 6, 2006

The will of God may not always happen because God has given humans power over the earth, and has to respect the boundaries, so He has to use humans to carry out His Will and Mission. That is why Christians have to pray and spread the word.

If man can subvert the Will of God, then he isn't God at all.

And it makes absolutely no sense that all sins are punishable by eternal damnation. I am sure there is scripture to back up that position, but it is nonsensical on its face.

For example, let's say the only sin you are guilty is coveting. And you didn't covet all the time, you only coveted once io your whole life. But you don't follow Jesus (ok, that would be two). So you go to Hell FOREVER.

Meanwhile, a serial rapist gives his life to Jesus while in prison, and he gets to go to Heaven. This free pass is given to genocidal maniacs, rapists, murderers, etc.

Why is it that human beings have a better sense of justice than God does? We have a codified system of laws that seperate offense depending on their severity--misdemeanors versus felonies, etc. Some crimes only require a fine, some are punishable by death. How come God doesn't have that? If He is God, certaily He could come up with a system that would eb perfect and everyone would be treated justly and fairly upon death, no?

But He didn't. For Him, it is easier to lump them all together, and then make the only requirement for forgiveness to believe something. In essence, you face eternal damnation for a thought-crime.

Not only that, you have NO CHANCE to not be guilty, as you have a sinful nature. You were born with it, and there is nothing you can do about it. You're not perfect, and try as you might you are never going to be. So, instead of rewarding the effort and weighing the bad against the good, you have to believe in a certain way. Not only is that inherently unfair, it is weird.

Animals act according to their nature, and are not punished. We act according to our nature, and are punished. Unjust. The vast majority of people are law-abiding and honest, love their families, help their communities, and care for others. If they weren't, you'd never be able to make enough prisons, and no amount of laws would keep civilization safe. Not only that, some of the things that are sins are unenforcable, like "coveting". The notion that a sin in the heart is the same as the sinful act is blatantly unjust. If I look at a woman and think about what it would be like to sleep with her--even though I never talk to her, lay a hand on her, or anything--I am guilty of a sin that is punishable by ETERNITY in a lake of fire. Whatever.

The feeling you get when gazing upon a beautiful woman and fantasizing is one of the things that makes life worth living, so why does God want to punish me for it? It makes no sense.

February 6, 2006

If man can subvert the Will of God, then he isn't God at all.

Except, of course, that within itself, is the will of God as it is clear in scripture that this is the case.

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

The original intent of God is to create free-will beings who will dominate the world and be in control of their own destiny. That is why, although it was against the will of God for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they could disobey God's commandment.

And it makes absolutely no sense that all sins are punishable by eternal damnation. I am sure there is scripture to back up that position, but it is nonsensical on its face.

For example, let's say the only sin you are guilty is coveting. And you didn't covet all the time, you only coveted once io your whole life. But you don't follow Jesus (ok, that would be two). So you go to Hell FOREVER.

It doesn't work that way. Say, what you are saying is true, you coveted. Then yes it is true, you sinned. But it doesn't stop there, you will be looking for an opportunity and a justification to do something about it. First it will start out with something tame, and then gradually get worst until there is a serious problem. The nature of sin is it doesn't just stop with one specific thought.

Meanwhile, a serial rapist gives his life to Jesus while in prison, and he gets to go to Heaven. This free pass is given to genocidal maniacs, rapists, murderers, etc.

No, a free pass is given to 'whosoever' shall call on his name. It seems however, that people who are in the wrong side of the fense, know they are wrong. One of the worst sins God hates is pride, a proudful look, and incidentally, people who think too much of themselves, or think they are good to make it, are often disenfranchising themselves out of an opportunity of grace. That is why, it was easier for prostitutes to get saved than religious Pharisees to accept Jesus.

Why is it that human beings have a better sense of justice than God does? We have a codified system of laws that seperate offense depending on their severity--misdemeanors versus felonies, etc. Some crimes only require a fine, some are punishable by death. How come God doesn't have that? If He is God, certaily He could come up with a system that would eb perfect and everyone would be treated justly and fairly upon death, no?

There are varying degrees of damnation too.

But He didn't. For Him, it is easier to lump them all together, and then make the only requirement for forgiveness to believe something. In essence, you face eternal damnation for a thought-crime.

Remember that serial rapist you brought up in an earlier example. I'm sure it all started with a lustful thought crime.

There are judgements, so whether people are going to hell or heaven, a judgement is going to occur that whatever happens is going to occur justly and fairly - perfectly.

But, nobody in heaven, can say they are there because of their good-works. Further than this, I would have to defer to Chris777, Moose, or other knowledbable born-again Chrsitan Bible scholars to deal with the rest of the post, because what you are saying makes makes some sence, but you are not God, and nobody else is God except for God, so He makes the Universe and all the rules, and like too bad if you dont agree with them.

However, I will say, that at least in this way, you can definiatively know that you are right with God by accepting Christ and that's fine. But a works-system schemes can still lead to ambiguities, for example, people will never know how many good works they need to make it, suppose they are one good work short, so, that system may not be fair either. People in works-based religions, and I include Roman Catholicism into that sum, are always unsure that in the back of their minds, they may not have been 'good enough' to make it. A life of fear if you are good enough to make it, is worst than just believing in something that will just automatically make you good enough to make it, like that. So a choice between worrying if you are good-enough and live a life of doubt and uncertainty and just knowing with surity that you can be saved, I would opt for the second choice.

February 6, 2006

Except, of course, that within itself, is the will of God as it is clear in scripture that this is the case.

So I can't go against the will of God, then.

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

The original intent of God is to create free-will beings who will dominate the world and be in control of their own destiny. That is why, although it was against the will of God for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they could disobey God's commandment.

So, God looks like us, and has a physical body like ours. But then again, He doesn't, right? Isn't He everywhere? And if he is everywhere, how could Adam and Eve hide from Him?

Moreover, God must have known that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree--He is all-knowing, after all. And why did He create the serpent, knowing that the serpent would tempt Eve and get the whole ball rolling?

I will not argue, as has been done on other threads, whether or not free will is illusory or not. What I will say is that the whole chapter of Genesis is nonsensical. I appreciate that you have to believe that it is true or your whole mythos falls apart, but that doesn't make it any less nutty. It is on a par with all lan being on a giant turtle's back or something.

It doesn't work that way. Say, what you are saying is true, you coveted. Then yes it is true, you sinned. But it doesn't stop there, you will be looking for an opportunity and a justification to do something about it. First it will start out with something tame, and then gradually get worst until there is a serious problem. The nature of sin is it doesn't just stop with one specific thought.

Sure it does. I have coiveted thousands of women. I already have today. And I didn't do anything about it. I have before--hence having a girlfriend--but most of the time I just covet. I covet all the time. In fact, I would say that our entire economic system is based on coveting.

No, a free pass is given to 'whosoever' shall call on his name. It seems however, that people who are in the wrong side of the fense, know they are wrong. One of the worst sins God hates is pride, a proudful look, and incidentally, people who think too much of themselves, or think they are good to make it, are often disenfranchising themselves out of an opportunity of grace. That is why, it was easier for prostitutes to get saved than religious Pharisees to accept Jesus.

God hates hypocrisy, too. God hates lots of things. Interesting that a being that is supposed to be pure good hates...

The whole concept of grace is a flawed one, because it is unfair. Moreover, as you have stated on another thread, once given it cannot be taken away, so one can repeat the same sin over and over once receiving grace and still go to Heaven. Not only is that not fair, it is nonsensical.

There are varying degrees of damnation too.

Oh? Do tell.

Remember that serial rapist you brought up in an earlier example. I'm sure it all started with a lustful thought crime.

The idea of raping someone doesn't make me lustful in the least. In fact, rape is a huge turn off to most people.

Without lust, our species would cease to reproduce and die off. It is in our nature to reproduce., Why is it ok in one instance to lust after women, but not in another?

There are judgements, so whether people are going to hell or heaven, a judgement is going to occur that whatever happens is going to occur justly and fairly - perfectly.

I disagree. Let's say that I am born-again (which I am, technically), and someone kills my mom. He finds Jesus in prison, so now, the murderer, me, and my mom are all walking around Heaven together. What are we to think when run into him? "Oh hey, glad to see you! Isn't Heaven awesome?" Puhleeze. And if God decides to erase my memory or somehow make it ok for us then our free will is gone, so it can't be Heaven at all.

But, nobody in heaven, can say they are there because of their good-works. Further than this, I would have to defer to Chris777, Moose, or other knowledbable born-again Chrsitan Bible scholars to deal with the rest of the post, because what you are saying makes makes some sence, but you are not God, and nobody else is God except for God, so He makes the Universe and all the rules, and like too bad if you dont agree with them.

Yep. And the more we learn about the Laws of the universe the smaller God gets.

However, I will say, that at least in this way, you can definiatively know that you are right with God by accepting Christ and that's fine. But a works-system schemes can still lead to ambiguities, for example, people will never know how many good works they need to make it, suppose they are one good work short, so, that system may not be fair either. People in works-based religions, and I include Roman Catholicism into that sum, are always unsure that in the back of their minds, they may not have been 'good enough' to make it. A life of fear if you are good enough to make it, is worst than just believing in something that will just automatically make you good enough to make it, like that. So a choice between worrying if you are good-enough and live a life of doubt and uncertainty and just knowing with surity that you can be saved, I would opt for the second choice.

I opt for neither. There is no logical way to mete out after-life justice; therefore there is no such thing.

February 6, 2006

So I can't go against the will of God, then.

How do you figure that?

So, God looks like us, and has a physical body like ours. But then again, He doesn't, right? Isn't He everywhere? And if he is everywhere, how could Adam and Eve hide from Him?

That is the nature of sin. Sin is seperation from God. When they sinned, they wanted to hide from God --- but they did not succeed, God still talked to them.

Moreover, God must have known that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree--He is all-knowing, after all. And why did He create the serpent, knowing that the serpent would tempt Eve and get the whole ball rolling?

No, He created Lucifer, who rebelled, along with 1/3 of Angels in heaven to start what is now known as the Kingdom of Darkness, where he became the devil, and all the angels that rebelled were also banished. To this planet.

I speculate that coincided with the extinction of the Dinosaurs - that big explosion that triggered the ice-age and made a whole set of animals extinct.

Afterwards, this devil was on the earth at the same time the human creation was made. The war has been in effect between both Kingdoms ever since.

At first, humans lost the war and was given over to the devil based on Adam's choice. Jesus came and redeemed humans on the Cross, changing the tide of victory to the Kingdom of God. Jesus defeated the devil's claim over the human race on the cross by paying for all our sins.

I will not argue, as has been done on other threads, whether or not free will is illusory or not. What I will say is that the whole chapter of Genesis is nonsensical. I appreciate that you have to believe that it is true or your whole mythos falls apart, but that doesn't make it any less nutty. It is on a par with all lan being on a giant turtle's back or something.

It is highly relevant to gain theological understanding of why Jesus came and died for our sin. It is not for you to start bashing true historical events that contradict the Evolution theory. It is amazing that you were silent when I gave my own interpretation of the Creation story as being the fall out of dust from the blast that killed the Dinosaurs as based on a terrestial observer of events. As the dust gradually falled from the atmosphere, there was light, darkness, than other planetary bodies. The chronology coincides with recovery of an environment damaged from a major comet collision. I think Genesis account of creation is factual and can be scientific too.

Sure it does. I have coiveted thousands of women. I already have today. And I didn't do anything about it. I have before--hence having a girlfriend--but most of the time I just covet. I covet all the time. In fact, I would say that our entire economic system is based on coveting.

You just lacked the opportunity to do the act.

Our whole economic system is very bad and unjust. It is totally f****d up.

Need a better just system. It is quite obvious we cant govern ourselves to have a fair economic system.

God hates hypocrisy, too. God hates lots of things. Interesting that a being that is supposed to be pure good hates...

...things that are impure.

The whole concept of grace is a flawed one, because it is unfair. Moreover, as you have stated on another thread, once given it cannot be taken away, so one can repeat the same sin over and over once receiving grace and still go to Heaven. Not only is that not fair, it is nonsensical.

I dont think so. People still have to confess, forsake and cleanse themselves if they sin. God forgives people, and you should too.

February 6, 2006

Can someone please explain what this is all about? It just doesn't make sense to me!

just got done reading book that explained this very issue.

It talked about why a loving God could let suffering take place and why he made hell and what hell realy is VS what we learned in Sunday school.

Infact it had a whole section based on this question: Why would God not allow Ghandi, a great, loving human wont go to heaven but repented serial killers will get in?

very interesting book and if anyone has doubt in there faith or question about the contridictions in the Bible, then read it. I dont take the Bible verbatim, but that is OK.

anyway, awesome book, one of 3 in a series. Its called "Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. The other books are Case for Christ, basically a investiagtive look at the claims for Christ and why the bible and other historical evidence is a very reliable source for his claims. Case for a Creator which i am starting next, which touches on Intelligent Design VS happenstance life.

Of course I beleive, but the books are more geared toward athetist and believers with doubt. I have doubts too, but I also have faith casue I have accepted the holy spirit into my heart.

February 7, 2006

How do you figure that?

Well, I have free-will, so I can do whatever I want, even go against God's will--because He wills me to have free-will. So, no matter what I do, I am doing God's Will.

That is the nature of sin. Sin is seperation from God. When they sinned, they wanted to hide from God --- but they did not succeed, God still talked to them.

He called out to them and asked them why they were hiding, and saw that they had covered their nakedness, and then asked if they ate from the Tree--even though He must have known before He asked.

No, He created Lucifer, who rebelled, along with 1/3 of Angels in heaven to start what is now known as the Kingdom of Darkness, where he became the devil, and all the angels that rebelled were also banished. To this planet.

I speculate that coincided with the extinction of the Dinosaurs - that big explosion that triggered the ice-age and made a whole set of animals extinct.

The meteor impact that probably killed the dinosaurs didn't cause an Ice Age, by the way. And why would any being, after having seen God in all His glory and being in Heaven rebel against Him? Lucifer is probably smarter than I am, and he is certainly more powerful than I am, and HE rejected God. Why doesn't God have a sliding scale based on innate cognitive ability as far as judgement goes?

Afterwards, this devil was on the earth at the same time the human creation was made. The war has been in effect between both Kingdoms ever since.
At first, humans lost the war and was given over to the devil based on Adam's choice. Jesus came and redeemed humans on the Cross, changing the tide of victory to the Kingdom of God. Jesus defeated the devil's claim over the human race on the cross by paying for all our sins.

That sounds like an Old Earth Creationist statement, which I am sure you must know is not scriptural.

It is highly relevant to gain theological understanding of why Jesus came and died for our sin. It is not for you to start bashing true historical events that contradict the Evolution theory.

Well, there aren't any, but that is for another thread. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. That idea is in only one book--Exodus in the Bible. That is it. I appreciate how much faith you put into the Bible and that is all the evidence you need, but there are those of us who require more than that.

I would say that understanding why Jesus had to be sacrificed is central to Christianity.

It is amazing that you were silent when I gave my own interpretation of the Creation story as being the fall out of dust from the blast that killed the Dinosaurs as based on a terrestial observer of events. As the dust gradually falled from the atmosphere, there was light, darkness, than other planetary bodies. The chronology coincides with recovery of an environment damaged from a major comet collision. I think Genesis account of creation is factual and can be scientific too.

If the Creation account is scientific please tell me how it can be falsified. I didn't mention it until you brought it up directly to me because we are discussing evolution and geology on another thread, so there is no sense rehashing it here.

You just lacked the opportunity to do the act.

No, I didn't. I just didn't feel like acting on it. I can covet and not do anything, I have a little thing called self-control.

Our whole economic system is very bad and unjust. It is totally f****d up.
Need a better just system. It is quite obvious we cant govern ourselves to have a fair economic system.

Interesting opinion. I actually like our economic system, and it is more fair tan any other I hve ever heard of--besides systems in primitive societies.

...things that are impure.

I dont think so. People still have to confess, forsake and cleanse themselves if they sin. God forgives people, and you should too.

I do. But I also hold them accountable, as does God.

February 7, 2006

Well, I have free-will, so I can do whatever I want, even go against God's will--because He wills me to have free-will. So, no matter what I do, I am doing God's Will.

It may be possible that there are varying degrees of 'will'. The Bible says God has a permissive will, an acceptable will, and a PERFECT will, so it is actually divided in three categories. The Will you are referring to would be His Permissive Will, which reflects the parameters that you could do whatever you want. The acceptable will would mean your actions or beliefs are in confirmity to what God wants.

The meteor impact that probably killed the dinosaurs didn't cause an Ice Age, by the way.

The meteor impact put dust into the atmosphere and made an environement equivalent to a nuclear winter, cutting off sunlight? Is that true? If it is, the dust-fall out would be congruent to a terrestrial observer's account of creation in Genesis. As dust settles, you get light and darkness, then you are able to see more things through the sky as more dusk goes down.

If Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and the Lord showed it to him in a vision, and He saw the earth from the point of being on the world, then then a fall-out of dust may scientifically reconcile what he saw.

And why would any being, after having seen God in all His glory and being in Heaven rebel against Him? Lucifer is probably smarter than I am, and he is certainly more powerful than I am, and HE rejected God. Why doesn't God have a sliding scale based on innate cognitive ability as far as judgement goes?

Pride. Lucifer thought he could be entitled to God's throne and made a coup attempt in heaven. The devil appealed to Adam and Eve to be like gods when it tempted them to eat the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, many people refuse to see the light of the Gospel, because they feel they can make it 'their way' and dont need God. Somethings never change.

Well, there aren't any, but that is for another thread. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. That idea is in only one book--Exodus in the Bible. That is it. I appreciate how much faith you put into the Bible and that is all the evidence you need, but there are those of us who require more than that.

It is also evidence that is accepted by most religious faiths without dispute. Including Judiasm, Christianity and probably Islam as they recognise Moses.

Billions of people accept this as true. How come they do not need more evidence?

I would say that understanding why Jesus had to be sacrificed is central to Christianity.

And to this thread.

If the Creation account is scientific please tell me how it can be falsified. I didn't mention it until you brought it up directly to me because we are discussing evolution and geology on another thread, so there is no sense rehashing it here.

I'm not saying the Creation account is scientific, but I'm always looking for common ground between science and the Creation story.

Interesting opinion. I actually like our economic system, and it is more fair tan any other I hve ever heard of--besides systems in primitive societies.

If you are a Real-Estate agent, you will like it less.

February 7, 2006

It may be possible that there are varying degrees of 'will'. The Bible says God has a permissive will, an acceptable will, and a PERFECT will, so it is actually divided in three categories. The Will you are referring to would be His Permissive Will, which reflects the parameters that you could do whatever you want. The acceptable will would mean your actions or beliefs are in confirmity to what God wants.

Which will is more important? And when you put them all together, I ctill maintain that I cannot go against god's will, no matter what I do.

In Revelation, there is a reference to the Book of the Lamb. My name is either in there right now or it isn't, and there is nothing I can do t ochange that. I may have a major conversion experience (again) or I may not. But it would seem that such is a foregone conclusion.

The meteor impact put dust into the atmosphere and made an environement equivalent to a nuclear winter, cutting off sunlight? Is that true? If it is, the dust-fall out would be congruent to a terrestrial observer's account of creation in Genesis. As dust settles, you get light and darkness, then you are able to see more things through the sky as more dusk goes down.

"Nuclear Winter" is not an Ice Age. The meteor impact changed the climate of the Earth dramatically, but it didn't freeze, nor did all life die out--obviously. And no, the dust fallout would not be consistent with the account in Genesis.

If Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and the Lord showed it to him in a vision, and He saw the earth from the point of being on the world, then then a fall-out of dust may scientifically reconcile what he saw.

No, the Genesis account describes the Earth being formed out of nothing, while the dust you describe would have already been here. Also, God creates the "heavens and the earth" which means that all the stars we see and other planets in our system were created at that time. A meteor impact would not create other systems or planets.

Wouldn't it be easier to accept that the Creation story is just a way to explain why there are people, and why we are the way we are, but the events described are not literal? The entire creation of the universe takes place in a couple of pages.

Pride. Lucifer thought he could be entitled to God's throne and made a coup attempt in heaven. The devil appealed to Adam and Eve to be like gods when it tempted them to eat the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, many people refuse to see the light of the Gospel, because they feel they can make it 'their way' and dont need God. Somethings never change.

Again, when confronted with perfection, why would any being of Lucifer's intelligence mount a coup attempt. Especially against god, the most powerful being in the Universe?

I would agree that the Bible speciaifcally speaks out against excessive pride--a valid point--but it does not follow that those who reject the Bible are so doing because of pride. I am very happy and content, and don't believe in god. I am proud of some things about myself and not so much about others (and work to change them).

It is also evidence that is accepted by most religious faiths without dispute. Including Judiasm, Christianity and probably Islam as they recognise Moses.
Billions of people accept this as true. How come they do not need more evidence?

Because the number of people who believe something is not indicative of that belief's validity. There are billions of Hindus and Buddhists, too. How come you don't agree with them? How come their anecdotal evidence is dismissable and yours is not? The truth is that the vast majority of people believe the same religion their parents and culture believe in. If you were born in India, you'd be an ardent Hindu.

And to this thread.

You are correct.

I'm not saying the Creation account is scientific, but I'm always looking for common ground between science and the Creation story.

It is possible that everything, from the first microbiotic life to us now has been directed by a super-being. That is impossible to determine--although when you consider the jury-rigging found in nature it is doubtful--but certainly possible. The men who wrote the Bible had nowhere near the information we have about nature, so isn't it possible that they were just explaining it as best they could? The people for whom they were writing had even less, I'm sure. The more ignorant someone is of a subject (I am not using that term perjoratively) the more they would tend to explain what they see magically.

If you are a Real-Estate agent, you will like it less.

You should move here. Real Estate agents here are making a killing. It is kind of a drag, too, because the market is so inflated I will probably never be able to buy a house in my home town. I love it here, but a 900 square-foot house is selling for $250,000 right now.

February 7, 2006

By the way Admiral:

I tried to PM you, but you have that function disabled, it seems. I would like to have a discussion with you about Chick Tracts. I am not looking to argue with you about them, nor am I looking to poke fun at your evangelical activities. Hence my trying to ask you this in private. Could you email me so we can talk about them?

My email is [email protected] I have no choice but to post that here, but maybe my doing so demonstrates my sincerity regarding this subject.

I look forward to hearing from you, and your next post on this thread.

February 8, 2006

Which will is more important? And when you put them all together, I ctill maintain that I cannot go against god's will, no matter what I do.

In Revelation, there is a reference to the Book of the Lamb. My name is either in there right now or it isn't, and there is nothing I can do t ochange that. I may have a major conversion experience (again) or I may not. But it would seem that such is a foregone conclusion.

Salvation is guaranteed in the Bible (John 3:16/Paul's letters to the churches) by receiving Jesus Christ as your savior. Assurance of salvation is on this life - you KNOW you are saved now, so you KNOW your name will be on that book NOW. If you are unsure if your name is there or not, chances are, it is not there and you have to get right with God.

"Nuclear Winter" is not an Ice Age. The meteor impact changed the climate of the Earth dramatically, but it didn't freeze, nor did all life die out--obviously. And no, the dust fallout would not be consistent with the account in Genesis. No, the Genesis account describes the Earth being formed out of nothing, while the dust you describe would have already been here. Also, God creates the "heavens and the earth" which means that all the stars we see and other planets in our system were created at that time. A meteor impact would not create other systems or planets.

Genesis 1:1 qualifies the creation of everything. It could be that everything was created in just that one verse, so you could interpret the following paragraphs in two ways. Traditionally it could follow as to HOW God created everything. Or, alternatively, it would be describing events from a terrestrial perspective AFTER Genesis 1:1.

Suppose everything was created in Genesis 1:1, but something happened in Genesis 1:2 where it could be implied a meteor struck the earth. If so, the remainder of the creation story would be describing the re-genesis of life on earth as opposed explaining how everything was created. Traditionally, creation is viewed from 'outer-space', but in this case, I'm placing the observer as seeing events from the earth itself as it would unfold after such a meteor strike.

Wouldn't it be easier to accept that the Creation story is just a way to explain why there are people, and why we are the way we are, but the events described are not literal? The entire creation of the universe takes place in a couple of pages.

No, then the Bible would be a myth, and would lose its potency of being an authority. We could be taking slippery slope arguements and suggest that every story in the Bible, that can not be proved archeologically is a myth, including as you said the Israelites bondage in Egypt and the plagues.

In the beginning of my faith, the creation story was a bit of a problem since dinosaurs, a fact of science that i personally believe in, remained too sketchy in the account of Genesis for comfort, so I'm more comfortable with this interpretation, that accounts for their existance. I am not comfortable with interpretations that require blind-faith. I can live with God creating everything out of nothing, but cant live with an idea that pre-hisorical fossils, which are now proven to exist, being incongruent with the creation story.

Again, when confronted with perfection, why would any being of Lucifer's intelligence mount a coup attempt. Especially against god, the most powerful being in the Universe?

Pride cometh before a fall. Pride, or the state of being proud, appearantly influenced this type of decision. That is why pride is listed as one of the worst sins, if not the worst sin. The whole premise of sin is based on pride. That we know better than God and can do what we want to do, instead of what He commands us to live our lives. Eve's decision to eat the fruit was based on the idea that she could be independent from God - to become as gods - and that was how the fall of humans started. So, if there is a concept more evil than the devil it would be pride, because it is where all evil came from.

I would agree that the Bible speciaifcally speaks out against excessive pride--a valid point--but it does not follow that those who reject the Bible are so doing because of pride. I am very happy and content, and don't believe in god. I am proud of some things about myself and not so much about others (and work to change them).

Pride as being the premise that we could live our lives without God, that we dont need a Savior, or it could be a belief that we could make it with our good-works, these are all ideas that stem out of a pride construct.

Being required to receive a Savior stings the idea of pride, because you cant accomplish anything, other than having faith in God and Jesus Christ. So in a sence, people who reject the Bible or Jesus Christ, has some element of pride involved in such a decision.

Because the number of people who believe something is not indicative of that belief's validity. There are billions of Hindus and Buddhists, too. How come you don't agree with them?

I agree with them to the extent that people of religions are searching for something beyond the natural world and believe in something beyond the natural world. For purposes of discussion, you said you believed the 'natural world' was all that existed, because it is the only world that science can study. However, the preponderance of ancedontal evidence suggests there is something inside of us that believes there is more than the natural world.

This in itself supports the notion of God, and the notion of the supernatural.

Beyond that extent, I disagree with their religions, but I understand why they are in religion or are inclined to believe in something beyond the natural world.

People join cults for the very same reasons too.

How come their anecdotal evidence is dismissable and yours is not?

As you can see, I have not dismissed it. They all say there is more than just the 'natural world', so maybe there is more out there then what our 5 sences tell us is out there, since so many people believe so.

The truth is that the vast majority of people believe the same religion their parents and culture believe in. If you were born in India, you'd be an ardent Hindu.

So, if the 'natural world' is the only reality, then why doesn't everyone just dump religion and instead believe there is more to life than the natural world?

I dont know if this is the thread of whether there is a God or not, but I can say, that the preponderonce of evidence supports there is more to life than the natural world. Therefore, I have satisified the proof that there is a God.

The reason that Jesus died for the sins of the world, are explained in the Old Testament in the fall of humanity, the OT Christ-typology, the law, the prophets, the NT, all consistently and coherently explain the reason. We could go into discussion of how Genesis explains this concept, then Exodus, Leviticus, etc...all the way to Revelation. This is one of the core reasons I believe in the Bible as to the coherency of this fundamental explanation and concept of Christ's death and ressurection and what it means.

It is possible that everything, from the first microbiotic life to us now has been directed by a super-being. That is impossible to determine--although when you consider the jury-rigging found in nature it is doubtful--but certainly possible. The men who wrote the Bible had nowhere near the information we have about nature, so isn't it possible that they were just explaining it as best they could? The people for whom they were writing had even less, I'm sure. The more ignorant someone is of a subject (I am not using that term perjoratively) the more they would tend to explain what they see magically.

That is what I figure. If Moses saw dust settle down from a meteor from the earth, then his experiences would be quite similar to the account of creation in the book of Genesis. Lacking scientific knowledge of the Dinosaur or meteor resonsible for their extinction, perhaps that is the reason the creation story was phrased that way.

February 9, 2006

Salvation is guaranteed in the Bible (John 3:16/Paul's letters to the churches) by receiving Jesus Christ as your savior. Assurance of salvation is on this life - you KNOW you are saved now, so you KNOW your name will be on that book NOW. If you are unsure if your name is there or not, chances are, it is not there and you have to get right with God.

Well, I don't think that there is any such book, for one thing, but that isn't my point. My name is either there or it isn't. As I said, I may have another conversion experience at some point, which would mean that my name is in the book. Or I probably won't in which case it isn't. In either case, it is a foregone conclusion.

Genesis 1:1 qualifies the creation of everything. It could be that everything was created in just that one verse, so you could interpret the following paragraphs in two ways. Traditionally it could follow as to HOW God created everything. Or, alternatively, it would be describing events from a terrestrial perspective AFTER Genesis 1:1.

Suppose everything was created in Genesis 1:1, but something happened in Genesis 1:2 where it could be implied a meteor struck the earth. If so, the remainder of the creation story would be describing the re-genesis of life on earth as opposed explaining how everything was created. Traditionally, creation is viewed from 'outer-space', but in this case, I'm placing the observer as seeing events from the earth itself as it would unfold after such a meteor strike.

So, Genesis 1:1 happened 2 billion years before Genesis 1:2? You are the first person I have come across who suggests this.

No, then the Bible would be a myth, and would lose its potency of being an authority. We could be taking slippery slope arguements and suggest that every story in the Bible, that can not be proved archeologically is a myth, including as you said the Israelites bondage in Egypt and the plagues.

Every story in the Bible is a myth. That doesn't mean they are false--myth is nont synonymous with fabrication. Most stories in the Bible are fabrications, however. That doesn't lessen their spiritual value to believers, nor should it, but that remains a fact. Creation of the Universe did not take place in six days, the sun never stopped in the sky during the battle of Jericho, there was no global flood, the Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians...the list goes on and on.

In the beginning of my faith, the creation story was a bit of a problem since dinosaurs, a fact of science that i personally believe in, remained too sketchy in the account of Genesis for comfort, so I'm more comfortable with this interpretation, that accounts for their existance. I am not comfortable with interpretations that require blind-faith. I can live with God creating everything out of nothing, but cant live with an idea that pre-hisorical fossils, which are now proven to exist, being incongruent with the creation story.

Genesis is a fable, and that's fine. That does not change its meaning one iota. We know it is a fable because it cannot be reconciled with verifiable facts. It is certain that the author had no idea what science was, and was not trying to state a list of facts.

Pride cometh before a fall. Pride, or the state of being proud, appearantly influenced this type of decision. That is why pride is listed as one of the worst sins, if not the worst sin. The whole premise of sin is based on pride. That we know better than God and can do what we want to do, instead of what He commands us to live our lives. Eve's decision to eat the fruit was based on the idea that she could be independent from God - to become as gods - and that was how the fall of humans started. So, if there is a concept more evil than the devil it would be pride, because it is where all evil came from.

All of which god created, so god creates evil.

Pride as being the premise that we could live our lives without God, that we dont need a Savior, or it could be a belief that we could make it with our good-works, these are all ideas that stem out of a pride construct.

I don't believe in god, so I don't even consider "making it".

Being required to receive a Savior stings the idea of pride, because you cant accomplish anything, other than having faith in God and Jesus Christ. So in a sence, people who reject the Bible or Jesus Christ, has some element of pride involved in such a decision.

I wouldn't say that I reject religion because I am prideful. I reject it becaues it is an unnessecary hypothesis.

I agree with them to the extent that people of religions are searching for something beyond the natural world and believe in something beyond the natural world. For purposes of discussion, you said you believed the 'natural world' was all that existed, because it is the only world that science can study. However, the preponderance of ancedontal evidence suggests there is something inside of us that believes there is more than the natural world.

This in itself supports the notion of God, and the notion of the supernatural.
Beyond that extent, I disagree with their religions, but I understand why they are in religion or are inclined to believe in something beyond the natural world.
People join cults for the very same reasons too.

People join cults because they are credulous. People are religious for a variety of reasons, like fear of death and cultural pressure. That doesn't make what they believe true, or that there is anything beyond the natural world--actually, by definition there can't be.

As you can see, I have not dismissed it. They all say there is more than just the 'natural world', so maybe there is more out there then what our 5 sences tell us is out there, since so many people believe so.

There may be, but there probably isn't. The number of people who believe something is not indicative of its truth. Basic logic dictates this.

So, if the 'natural world' is the only reality, then why doesn't everyone just dump religion and instead believe there is more to life than the natural world?

It would be great if they would, in many ways. The less developed and educated a culture is, the more religious they are. Religion can explain a great many things, but that doesn't mean that the explanation is valid.

I dont know if this is the thread of whether there is a God or not, but I can say, that the preponderonce of evidence supports there is more to life than the natural world. Therefore, I have satisified the proof that there is a God.

For yourself, maybe. But I repeat: The number of people who believe something is not indicative of that beliefs validity.

People in India--perhaps the most credulous society on the planet--are preyed upon by Fakirs (that's where the word "fake" comes from) who make statues drink milk, perfomr supposedly "miraculous" physical feats, make things appear out of thin air, and lots more. And all of it is a lie. There is a group of men in India now who go around debunking these people, but they are ahving a tough time of it. Such is the strength of belief.

The reason that Jesus died for the sins of the world, are explained in the Old Testament in the fall of humanity, the OT Christ-typology, the law, the prophets, the NT, all consistently and coherently explain the reason. We could go into discussion of how Genesis explains this concept, then Exodus, Leviticus, etc...all the way to Revelation. This is one of the core reasons I believe in the Bible as to the coherency of this fundamental explanation and concept of Christ's death and ressurection and what it means.

I know what it means, and why Jesus had to die for our sins. I reject it, too.

That is what I figure. If Moses saw dust settle down from a meteor from the earth, then his experiences would be quite similar to the account of creation in the book of Genesis. Lacking scientific knowledge of the Dinosaur or meteor resonsible for their extinction, perhaps that is the reason the creation story was phrased that way.

Exactly. The person who wrote Genesis did not have access to the information we have now.

February 10, 2006

Every story in the Bible is a myth. That doesn't mean they are false--myth is nont synonymous with fabrication. Most stories in the Bible are fabrications, however. That doesn't lessen their spiritual value to believers, nor should it, but that remains a fact.

Truth is fundamental to the Bible. Therefore it would be unacceptable to suggest that any part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was fabricated without compromising the spiritual value.

Creation of the Universe did not take place in six days, the sun never stopped in the sky during the battle of Jericho, there was no global flood, the Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians...the list goes on and on.

However, it is possible that these events occurred. The interpretation that creation occurred in six days is one of a few interpretations of that story, I think my interpretation reconciles any confusion around that story. I'm sure if you look in the relevant search engines you will find proof for the global flood and other archeological proofs in the Bible.

Genesis is a fable, and that's fine. That does not change its meaning one iota. We know it is a fable because it cannot be reconciled with verifiable facts. It is certain that the author had no idea what science was, and was not trying to state a list of facts.

The author had a real experience of what went on, however, the interpretaiton of what he experienced could be reconciled with scientific knowledge about the past. That was the point.

All of which god created, so god creates evil.

In a sence, it is a necessary prerequsite of freedom.

I wouldn't say that I reject religion because I am prideful. I reject it becaues it is an unnessecary hypothesis.

And how do you figure that, without being prideful? In a sence, you are saying God is unnecessary, and that you can be independent from God, and therefore that is pride, no?

People join cults because they are credulous. People are religious for a variety of reasons, like fear of death and cultural pressure. That doesn't make what they believe true, or that there is anything beyond the natural world--actually, by definition there can't be.

What we are really defining is motivations here, not whether what they believe is true or not. The fact is, people are reaching out to something that is beyond the natural world - or beyond your rigid defination as there cant be anything beyond the natural world. It is no coincidence that people are hardwired to believe and seek after God.

There may be, but there probably isn't. The number of people who believe something is not indicative of its truth. Basic logic dictates this.

But it does indicate that something is there. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about collective solipcism here, but there is allot of indications around to consistently show that there is more to the world than the natural world.

It would be great if they would, in many ways. The less developed and educated a culture is, the more religious they are. Religion can explain a great many things, but that doesn't mean that the explanation is valid.

For purposes of this discussion, the commonality again challenges your defination that the natural world is the only real world that exists.

For yourself, maybe. But I repeat: The number of people who believe something is not indicative of that beliefs validity.

The belief validity, we are talking about is there being something more than the natural world. The only way you can really definitively prove there is nothing more than the natural world, is to disprove that there is not anything more than a natural world. However, not being able to do that, the onus is shiften on me to come up with something. It seems that billions of other people accept the fact that there is more than just the natural world, and many people have experiences that are indicative of that.

Not everything could be measured by scientific technology, if say for example, it is composed of anti-matter, or another matter, or a 'spiritual matter' - so I think a good case is made to the fact that the natural world, with the parameter natural reality, is not the only world that exists.

People in India--perhaps the most credulous society on the planet--are preyed upon by Fakirs (that's where the word "fake" comes from) who make statues drink milk, perfomr supposedly "miraculous" physical feats, make things appear out of thin air, and lots more. And all of it is a lie. There is a group of men in India now who go around debunking these people, but they are ahving a tough time of it. Such is the strength of belief.

The funny thing is, I accept the fact that the statues have drunk milk, performed physical feats, make things out of thin air, etc... I believe that people with those idols have had authentic experiences.

However, I would say, that those experiences were devillish and the devil was playing tricks with them. That would be my interpretation. But, it still acknowledges that people had real experiences. Now, you would say, somebody rigged it up. I would dismiss the possibility that someone would do that, because people would know if someone rigged it up or not because they are not stupid. I have much more faith in the Indian people than that (even though I am not Indian myself).

I know what it means, and why Jesus had to die for our sins. I reject it, too.

Why?

Exactly. The person who wrote Genesis did not have access to the information we have now.

However, that does not diminish from his experience or revelation of how creation occurred. The interpretation of that revelation, as you have read my own personal version, could differ from people who read the story. Those who are scientifically inclined may be tempted to consider my interpretation.

February 10, 2006

IF Jesus really did die for our sins, than I am sorry to say that he died for no reason.

That's why there is a saying about everyone being the maker of their own faith and destiny. We would need many more Jesuses to die to clear sins...

February 10, 2006

The funny thing is, I accept the fact that the statues have drunk milk, performed physical feats, make things out of thin air, etc... I believe that people with those idols have had authentic experiences.

However, I would say, that those experiences were devillish and the devil was playing tricks with them. That would be my interpretation. But, it still acknowledges that people had real experiences. Now, you would say, somebody rigged it up. I would dismiss the possibility that someone would do that, because people would know if someone rigged it up or not because they are not stupid. I have much more faith in the Indian people than that (even though I am not Indian myself).

I have seen the debunking of the Indian "magicians". If you saw them debunked, or as here you are being told that the information is available to see that they are false yet you choose to believe that they are valid. Not only are you saying that you are apt to believe it but than use your religion ( the devil portion) to explain it. The coconuts do not fill with blood it is a trick, the flower blossoms in the coconut are planted. These are tricks used to prey on peoples fears, give them hope, and at the same time gain wealth and power for the performer not the devil. Your choice to offer validation as it being the work of the devil shows that you are not willing to see the facts. I do not understand why you would be so willing to believe in this.

February 10, 2006

I have seen the debunking of the Indian "magicians". If you saw them debunked, or as here you are being told that the information is available to see that they are false yet you choose to believe that they are valid. Not only are you saying that you are apt to believe it but than use your religion ( the devil portion) to explain it. The coconuts do not fill with blood it is a trick, the flower blossoms in the coconut are planted. These are tricks used to prey on peoples fears, give them hope, and at the same time gain wealth and power for the performer not the devil. Your choice to offer validation as it being the work of the devil shows that you are not willing to see the facts. I do not understand why you would be so willing to believe in this.

The statues drinking milk - how do you explain that then? Or, what about stories on CNN about some Indian villages being attacked by UFO's, where some people have died or been seriously injured by laser beams from these flying saucers. I've read sources from Christian journals of snake gods coming to life and becoming snakes biting and killing people on one bite when someone sang a snake dance song, and that a Christian rebuked the snake in the name of Jesus. I've heard of people going inside Hindu temples and coming out demon possessed - who were never the same afterwards. I get the creeps whenever I show a Hindu home to a client and am forced to breath incense on an alter having idols on it.

When I am walking around in a Hindu home, or business, I may feel something is looking at me, and I turn, and I see a picture of their idol, or another idol may be staring at me. I'm convinced that they are really diabolical and are infested with evil spirits - and to that extent are real.

One client, that I showed a Hindu home to, reported feeling something was biting his head, and claimed the house was haunted. I always get the creeps whenever I see a Hindu idol. I know the stories of the Kali idol as being a murderous god that kills its own followers for the most minor of infractions, and there are actual reports of that happening.

To be honest, I believe that there is something more to it then just a Hindu religion or idols - something very, very evil. I've read about a testimony from a guy in Russia who choose Hinduism, and set up a bunch of Hindu idols. He got a nasty rash afterwards that doctors could not diagnose or treat. When he received Jesus Christ, and got rid of those idols the rash dissappeared.

So, I think there is something there.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_1.asp

February 10, 2006

The statues drinking milk - how do you explain that then? Or, what about stories on CNN about some Indian villages being attacked by UFO's, where some people have died or been seriously injured by laser beams from these flying saucers. I've read sources from Christian journals of snake gods coming to life and becoming snakes biting and killing people on one bite when someone sang a snake dance song, and that a Christian rebuked the snake in the name of Jesus. I've heard of people going inside Hindu temples and coming out demon possessed - who were never the same afterwards. I get the creeps whenever I show a Hindu home to a client and am forced to breath incense on an alter having idols on it.

When I am walking around in a Hindu home, or business, I may feel something is looking at me, and I turn, and I see a picture of their idol, or another idol may be staring at me. I'm convinced that they are really diabolical and are infested with evil spirits - and to that extent are real.

One client, that I showed a Hindu home to, reported feeling something was biting his head, and claimed the house was haunted. I always get the creeps whenever I see a Hindu idol. I know the stories of the Kali idol as being a murderous god that kills its own followers for the most minor of infractions, and there are actual reports of that happening.

To be honest, I believe that there is something more to it then just a Hindu religion or idols - something very, very evil. I've read about a testimony from a guy in Russia who choose Hinduism, and set up a bunch of Hindu idols. He got a nasty rash afterwards that doctors could not diagnose or treat. When he received Jesus Christ, and got rid of those idols the rash dissappeared.

So, I think there is something there.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_1.asp

I cannot believe this post. I am in awe! The dude probably had a flea on his head in the hindu home (not saying hindus have fleas, not at all) singing snake songs ...... statues come to life....? Have you seen Captain Hook lately?

I dabble in a bit of teleporting my vital self to visit others. Should I bring a bottle of wine when I drop in on you tonight? Just as probable, but I have been known to know what is going to happen before it does, and I have displayed my psychic powers on LS previously..... except getting Jadestars artsy scarf wrong I think I did well!

February 10, 2006

I cannot believe this post. I am in awe! The dude probably had a flea on his head in the hindu home (not saying hindus have fleas, not at all) singing snake songs ...... statues come to life....? Have you seen Captain Hook lately?

I dabble in a bit of teleporting my vital self to visit others. Should I bring a bottle of wine when I drop in on you tonight? Just as probable, but I have been known to know what is going to happen before it does, and I have displayed my psychic powers on LS previously..... except getting Jadestars artsy scarf wrong I think I did well!

Just because you have not experienced something does not mean others have not.

February 23, 2006

Just because someone says, "oops, I'm sorry" , doesn't mean they are truly sorry. Not all the time, but sometimes as you said- people think they can use God's mercy as an excuse to continue sinning. Not so. They are fooling themselves.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Again, if you have truly been adopted into God's family and the Holy Spirit is living inside of you, there should be some evidence of that in your life. It is not just a matter of meaningless words. think about those words, "I never knew you: Depart from me."

February 24, 2006

Just because someone says, "oops, I'm sorry" , doesn't mean they are truly sorry. Not all the time, but sometimes as you said- people think they can use God's mercy as an excuse to continue sinning. Not so. They are fooling themselves.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Sure, that means, every yonge guy here that looks at a girl is going to hell because they are sinning by lusting with their eyes. If your eyes look the wrong way, you cant say, oops I'm sorry, you have to go into sathcloth and ashes and try to repent of each instance of sin, no matter how minute.

What I am saying is that the gravity of the sin also has to be taken into consideration. I think as a whole, sin is a way, not just any particular 'action of a moment', and the way of sin leads to death. If someone lives a particular sinful lifestyle, that is just punctuated by repentence and asking for forgiveness, then that would hold true.

If someone fails in a moment of temptation or ignorance, than that's another story, as long as it is not part of their lifestyle.

Repentance, is really a change of a way. Every born-again Christian, will fall into temptaiton, and some, may sin at least once or a few times in their Christian walk. The Bible says that Jesus is faithful to forgive all sins and trespasses, and to protect His followers from temptation if it is too much.

So, if a 'wrong thought' were to enter the mind for a few seconds, one can say 'oops a wrong through just entered, let me think about something else'.

Again, if you have truly been adopted into God's family and the Holy Spirit is living inside of you, there should be some evidence of that in your life. It is not just a matter of meaningless words. think about those words, "I never knew you: Depart from me."

That is right, but the Bible does not teach sinful perfection. Neither does the Bible stress that we are, out of our own self-will and effort, to improve our lives and defeat sin with our own strength, everthing is in the context of Christ.

For example, a born-again Christian should ask Jesus to help Him with any particular temptation issue, or any other problem, should they perceive there is a 100% chance he or she is going to fail.

You do not have to compromise being a human to a robot and be a Christian at the same time. God will help people live right by dealing on a personal level through the Holy Spirit. So, as long as you do not imply legalism, then you would be correct.

February 24, 2006

Sure, that means, every yonge guy here that looks at a girl is going to hell because they are sinning by lusting with their eyes. If your eyes look the wrong way, you cant say, oops I'm sorry, you have to go into sathcloth and ashes and try to repent of each instance of sin, no matter how minute.

What I am saying is that the gravity of the sin also has to be taken into consideration. I think as a whole, sin is a way, not just any particular 'action of a moment', and the way of sin leads to death. If someone lives a particular sinful lifestyle, that is just punctuated by repentence and asking for forgiveness, then that would hold true.

If someone fails in a moment of temptation or ignorance, than that's another story, as long as it is not part of their lifestyle.

Repentance, is really a change of a way. Every born-again Christian, will fall into temptaiton, and some, may sin at least once or a few times in their Christian walk. The Bible says that Jesus is faithful to forgive all sins and trespasses, and to protect His followers from temptation if it is too much.

So, if a 'wrong thought' were to enter the mind for a few seconds, one can say 'oops a wrong through just entered, let me think about something else'.

That is right, but the Bible does not teach sinful perfection. Neither does the Bible stress that we are, out of our own self-will and effort, to improve our lives and defeat sin with our own strength, everthing is in the context of Christ.

For example, a born-again Christian should ask Jesus to help Him with any particular temptation issue, or any other problem, should they perceive there is a 100% chance he or she is going to fail.

You do not have to compromise being a human to a robot and be a Christian at the same time. God will help people live right by dealing on a personal level through the Holy Spirit. So, as long as you do not imply legalism, then you would be correct.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm was not at all saying that people can't make mistakes or that just because they are saved they will never sin again.

I was trying to illustrate the point of some situations. The OP had said that all of these people were going to heaven just cuz they uttered an apology. I was trying to say that God judges us by our actions and not our words. He sees the true condition of our heart and loves us still. And when we love him, we want to please him and be the best we can be for him, not use him to clear our consciences and to give us license to continue be destructive.

Sure, we make mistakes. No one said that God does not or will not forgive those mistakes. I was merely talking about that one circumstance the poster was asking about.

As far as legalism. nope. I am definitely not into that and think that it rips people off of hearing the truth of God's love and mercy.

God bless

February 26, 2006

A million pages of posts up here, and it looks like the blind leading the blind. Let ol' Flavius contribute something that (a) connects the head-scratching common sense of the non-Christians to the arbitrary certitude of the Evangelical/Fundamentalists, and (b) renders about 90% of what's been posted above just irrelevant.

Let me explain. Just about every error of religious doctrine is not an error of FACT, but an error or EMPHASIS (e.g., al Quaeda.) When certain facts are elevated to positions of centrality, and certain other facts are swept uner the bed in order to bolster the "centrality" of the chosen facts, the result is a distorted doctrine. What is distorted in this case is not the individual facts propounded by the Evange-mentalists as the Plan of Salvation. What IS distorted (as you non-Christians out there instinctively feel) is just WHERE THE MATTER OF SIN & FORGIVEN-NESS & ATONEMENT & FAITH FIT IN GOD'S RELATIONSHIP TO (AND EXPECTATIONS OF) MAN.

About here is where you Evange-mentalists will make wrong assumptions about my beliefs, so chill just a minute before you throw me into an eternal, fiery hell, okay?

The Evange-mentalist narrative of the "Story of God & Man" goes something like this. (You non-Christians, don't obsess about historical-factual stuff yet, or you'll miss the whole point.) Ready? Go... God created Man perfect in his own image. But Man sinned, in defacto rebellion against God. Having abandoned the "umbrella of God's grace," man fell under a veritable curse (scarcity, competition, frustration, and ultimate death.) Since the Earth was Man's God-given domain, the whole Earth too fell under the Rebellion-curse. Man became an exile, a stranger in the realm that once nurtured him. What the "original sin" started, the curse ran away with as scarcity, competition, frustration, and the futility of ultimate death ravaged the Image of God. Sin separated individual people farther and farther from what it means to be Truly Human. But with the curse came a promise from God, that He would send his Chosen One, a savior who would redeem sinful man from their exile and regather them into an eternal kingdom. The Jews were the keepers of that Promise, and they looked for the Messiah and venerated the unutterable name of the One God. Later (WAY later, but soon enough in God's mind), Jesus the Messiah was born into the world. The Jews who sought him rejected him as their King from Heaven, and they had him crucified (as a rebel agains Caesar, incidentally, which in fact he was, even if not a conventional military/political rebel.) What the Jews had missed in their scriptures (though not entirely) is that it was prophesied that the Messiah would suffer and make atonement for the sins of all mankind. Astonishingly, the crucified King from Heaven rose up alive again and decisively inaugurated the Kingdom of God on Earth, revoking the exile and progressively regathering the people of God. What's more, with the sin-rebellion problem cared for, the curse of ultimate death was shattered, as demonstrated by the resurrection of the dead-and-gone Jesus. Thus all of God's gathered people look with eager expectation for their own resurrection to eternal life.

So who ARE the gathered people of the Kingdom? To the Evange-mentalist it is those who believe in and comply with a system of salvation that they stated clearly above: turn away from sin, trust in Jesus' sacrificial death to pay the price for their sins, and then avoid sin while for the rest of your life doing all you can to gather others in to the Kingdom (by persuading them to do likewise.)

Now, you non-Christians saw it, while you Evangelicals missed it: The System of Salvation is often a complete nonsequitur on the heels of the whole "Story of God & Man."

In fact, consider that this System of Salvation was utterly un-thought-of before the 18th century. In fact, which of Jesus' converts featured in the Gospels followed such a system? (The woman at the well? "Legion," the demon-posessed man? Matthew the tax-collector? The thief on the cross? NONE of these folks had an inkling of crucifiction, atonement, or justification by faith. But each CAPITULATED TO JESUS -- they recognized him as the Chosen One, the promised King from Heaven. There's no hint that any of them even believed he was a "Third-Person-of-the-Trinity," as I do.

Are the non-Christians right when they freak out over the way Evange-mentalists utterly divorce faith and ethics in the salvation equation? Well Jesus did not divorce them. In fact he taught at least 100x more about ethics than about atonement and heaven combined. But his #1 topic was... what?? THE KINGDOM OF GOD!!

"REPENT!" This means simply to turn to the Kingdom of God, and to capitulate to Jesus the Messiah-King. And it is possible for a man to enter the kingdom of God, compliments of Jesus who made atonement for the sins of the whole world. It means to live as a citizen of the Kingdom according to all the teaching of Jesus. It does NOT NOT NOT mean you are to spend the rest of you life nit-picking your own behavior and other people's language, etc. It does not mean two milennia of sectarian quibbling, and it does not mean that you (who after 1700 years finally extracted the "System of Salvation" from the Bible) can now by proxy identify who is and who ain't saved.

So CAN you know you are saved? Well heck yes, you can! It was God's idea to save people, not yours. If you bow the knee to Jesus, if you live according to his teaching, if you long for his justice -- of COURSE you're saved. And I would suppose anyone else whom he wishes to likewise gather into the Kingdom is saved as well.

Evange-mentalists, lighten up and live in the glorious freedom of the children of God (Ro. 8). Don't choke on a camel after you strained out the gnats.

And all you who aren't sure where you stand, except that you're darned sure you're not an Evange-mentalist? What about you? Let Jesus speak for himself. If you hear his voice I believe you'll hear the smile in his voice when he says "Repent, Dude. The Kingdom of God is HERE!"

What about hell? No that's a different subject. I'll aggravate you all about that one another day. Let's just say that the gospel is about the Kingdom, not about hell.

Now aren't you glad you read my whole torent of words?

February 26, 2006

What about hell? No that's a different subject. I'll aggravate you all about that one another day. Let's just say that the gospel is about the Kingdom, not about hell.

Now aren't you glad you read my whole torent of words?

After everything you wrote, why do you say that hell is a different subject? You say:

"REPENT!" This means simply to turn to the Kingdom of God

But in order to do that, one must be ok with the thought that God will otherwise send you to hell, which doesn't make the process as simple as you state. That is not a loving attribute as preached. So I think the hell subject is DIRECTLY related since that's one of the major reasons why someone might not believe, just like how it works to scare others into believing. Therefore it cannot be excluded in the discussion. If to embrace God means to embrace his sending off many people to firey hell for eternity, no thanks, I'd rather not worship such a "loving" being who could do that to man. He sends his son to be sacrified, but I think that gets outweighed by the billions+ of people he sends to hell. I'd rather die on a cross than burn for all eternity - trillions of years and longer. Maybe you or someone can address that... All the responses I've received on this issue is that "well, believe and you won't go to hell." I feel like nobody is really hearing the question... Had Jesus not died for our sins, would people have been spared from going to hell? If God is so loving and understanding, why doesn't he give people a second chance after they die, just like man gives each other? In fact, we give each other 3 chances (3 strikes law). How can he live with himself, sending so many to hell, just because he sent one person to be crucified? as if all the other people aren't important to him.

February 26, 2006

I'd rather die on a cross than burn for all eternity - trillions of years and longer. Maybe you or someone can address that...

HCG, google "dante's inferno" and take the test to find out which level of hell you are destined for. I'm apparently going to limbo, which sounds not too bad a place to go if you enjoy interesting conversations in a melancholy environment.

Excerpt from the brochure...

Charon ushers you across the river Acheron, and you find yourself upon the brink of grief's abysmal valley. You are in Limbo, a place of sorrow without torment. You encounter a seven-walled castle, and within those walls you find rolling fresh meadows illuminated by the light of reason, whereabout many shades dwell. These are the virtuous pagans, the great philosophers and authors, unbaptised children, and others unfit to enter the kingdom of heaven. You share company with Caesar, Homer, Virgil, Socrates, and Aristotle. There is no punishment here, and the atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad.

tip - repenting for your sins seems to be the best way of moving yourself up a couple of levels up from the fiery pits. My horrible ex is destined for the 9th level!! Hooray! Whoops...back down amongst the whips and heat I slide.

Why did Jesus die for our sins?

Recommended Posts

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

ThumbingMyWay

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Moai

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

My_Other_I

Link to post

Share on other sites

a4a

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

a4a

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

sweetmind20

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to post

Share on other sites

flavius

Link to post

Share on other sites

HotCaliGirl

Link to post

Share on other sites

lindya

Link to post

Share on other sites

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...