Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Discuss the Christian Faith.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Please post the letter that best describes your views.

A. Salvation is based upon one's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.

B. Salvation is based upon one's obedience to the Lordship of Christ and abiding in his teachings.

C. Both

D. Neither

E. I don't believe in Jesus

F. I'm not sure what to believe
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

I think 'E' should read "I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus". Just my humble opinion.

PS--Poll not Pole.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

AnneBoleyn;1451332 wrote: I think 'E' should read "I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus". Just my humble opinion.

PS--Poll not Pole.


Ty anne
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Snowfire »

D and E
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Snowfire;1451346 wrote: D and E


Aren't they very similar? Or are they the same?
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Snowfire »

AnneBoleyn;1451347 wrote: Aren't they very similar? Or are they the same?


Yes, I think either/or would encompass my view.

I suppose I could agree in any histrosity concerning Jesus but I think it's at best fragile, so that would require me to have a faith

Spiritual salvation of any description isnt on the cards either.

Looks like I could go to Hell....if I had a belief in that as well
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by LarsMac »

AnneBoleyn;1451347 wrote: Aren't they very similar? Or are they the same?


Not necessarily.

I believe in Jesus, but don't buy the Salvation stuff.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

LarsMac;1451349 wrote: Not necessarily.

I believe in Jesus, but don't buy the Salvation stuff.


Question LarsMac, in light of the 2 following sets of verses: how do you claim believe in Jesus and not believe his words? Just curious.



Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,



Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

My bad... just realized you may believe he existed, just dont believe anything he said.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

AnneBoleyn;1451347 wrote: Aren't they very similar? Or are they the same?


Was thinking a person could believe salvation, though Jesus, is based on some other configuration of assumed facts.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by LarsMac »

sheep;1451352 wrote: Question LarsMac, in light of the 2 following sets of verses: how do you claim believe in Jesus and not believe his words? Just curious.



Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,



Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

My bad... just realized you may believe he existed, just dont believe anything he said.


Neither of those verses have a thing to do with your poll choices.

I am not in need of any salvation that is dependent upon my doing anything, accepting anything, or obeying anyone.

Jesus says, "Follow me." I follow him. End of story.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

LarsMac;1451354 wrote: Neither of those verses have a thing to do with your poll choices.

I am not in need of any salvation that is dependent upon my doing anything, accepting anything, or obeying anyone.

Jesus says, "Follow me." I follow him. End of story.


I'm just trying to understand your response/faith. What do you mean that you follow him? Isn't that the same as B? If not can you please explain the difference?
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

I thought no commentary was needed?
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bruv »

I find the choice of 'sheep' with no capitalisation as a user name the most telling part of this thread.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

fuzzywuzzy;1451362 wrote: I thought no commentary was needed?


I'm trying to get an understanding of what others actually believe... If I can't understand a person's belief then it is of self-defeating.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by LarsMac »

sheep;1451359 wrote: I'm just trying to understand your response/faith. What do you mean that you follow him? Isn't that the same as B? If not can you please explain the difference?


It is the whole salvation thing. What you refer to as Salvation is free, and depends on nothing.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

When you reach the hall of judgement the scales of justice are brought forth.

On the one side God places your good deeds and good thoughts, on the other your bad deeds and bad thoughts - if the good outweighs the bad then you are saved, if the scales are even then you serve time in purgatory otherwise you are damn'd.

The Prophets are here to guide you but yours is the decision - you choose to be good or you choose to be for yourself.

The God of the Children of the Book is one God who also guided Gautama in his meditations.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451587 wrote: When you reach the hall of judgement the scales of justice are brought forth.

On the one side God places your good deeds and good thoughts, on the other your bad deeds and bad thoughts - if the good outweighs the bad then you are saved, if the scales are even then you serve time in purgatory otherwise you are damn'd.

The Prophets are here to guide you but yours is the decision - you choose to be good or you choose to be for yourself.

The God of the Children of the Book is one God who also guided Gautama in his meditations.


I don't see that taught in scriptures. Nor would a corrupt earthly judge use such a system or strategy to judge others. How does that even make any sense on any level what so ever? Isn't goodness expected/demanded by all men of others?
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451647 wrote: I don't see that taught in scriptures. Nor would a corrupt earthly judge use such a system or strategy to judge others. How does that even make any sense on any level what so ever? Isn't goodness expected/demanded by all men of others?


Who said I follow the Scriptures?

The point is that the judgement is not being done by a corrupt earthly judge but by God who see what is in your heart.



I take it you don't recognise the origin of the proposition?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451670 wrote: Who said I follow the Scriptures?

The point is that the judgement is not being done by a corrupt earthly judge but by God who see what is in your heart.



I take it you don't recognise the origin of the proposition?


If you believe in God, and you look at the nature you have, then it should become clear that weighing One's good verses bad deeds, is not a reasonable standard to use by a benevolent Being. Even corrupted beings would not consider that form of judgment as being right: in dealing with offending beings.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451672 wrote: If you believe in God, and you look at the nature you have, then it should become clear that weighing One's good verses bad deeds, is not a reasonable standard to use by a benevolent Being. Even corrupted beings would not consider that form of judgment as being right: in dealing with offending beings.


Why?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451832 wrote: Why?


A person wronged does not care about how you acted in general, only that you have wronged them and should you be allowed to get away with violating them?
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Sheep speaks for God. How lofty. I rarely am glad to be atheist, but in moments like this...............
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451841 wrote: A person wronged does not care about how you acted in general, only that you have wronged them and should you be allowed to get away with violating them?


But the person uplifted by your good deeds knows only that you have blessed them and should be honoured for so doing. If the balance of the good that you have done outweighs the hurt that you have caused then you are a good person.

Why concentrate only on the negative side of the equation?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451848 wrote: But the person uplifted by your good deeds knows only that you have blessed them and should be honoured for so doing. If the balance of the good that you have done outweighs the hurt that you have caused then you are a good person.

Why concentrate only on the negative side of the equation?


Tell that to the person you have wronged.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451850 wrote: Tell that to the person you have wronged.


Why concentrate only on the negative side of the equation?

It is an equation, there are two sides and both need to be taken into account.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451851 wrote: Why concentrate only on the negative side of the equation?

It is an equation, there are two sides and both need to be taken into account.


Have you ever tried to figure out an answer to a problem and gotten one part of the equation wrong and gotten the right answer?
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451852 wrote: Have you ever tried to figure out an answer to a problem and gotten one part of the equation wrong and gotten the right answer?


No, I'm a mathematician - now would you care to answer the real question?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451855 wrote: No, I'm a mathematician - now would you care to answer the real question?


You are trying to use addition and subtraction to get the solution to a problem that demands a different formula.

Let's consider your act of injustice towards another and assume that life will continue upon the earth for another 100 years. How much harm do you think your violation will have upon others? Since the world is already so scarred with violence, what if your violation happened in a pure world, were men are not accustom to such violations, do you think your act would have a greater affect upon that society? Of course it would. But does that make your act in a scarred world any less wrong? Absolutely not. You are a mathematician so you should have reasoning capabilities to understand why I am saying what I am. The truth is that you cannot use pluses and minuses to judge the harm of a persons actions, you must use many more equations to factor in the harm a person's actions have and I can assure you 1 harmful act is more destructive then 100 benevolent acts: once the accumulative affects of the acts are weighed in.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451864 wrote: You are trying to use addition and subtraction to get the solution to a problem that demands a different formula.

Let's consider your act of injustice towards another and assume that life will continue upon the earth for another 100 years. How much harm do you think your violation will have upon others? Since the world is already so scarred with violence, what if your violation happened in a pure world, were men are not accustom to such violations, do you think your act would have a greater affect upon that society? Of course it would. But does that make your act in a scarred world any less wrong? Absolutely not. You are a mathematician so you should have reasoning capabilities to understand why I am saying what I am. The truth is that you cannot use pluses and minuses to judge the harm of a persons actions, you must use many more equations to factor in the harm a person's actions have and I can assure you 1 harmful act is more destructive then 100 benevolent acts: once the accumulative affects of the acts are weighed in.


Which is exactly why such a balance could only be achieved by a God who can see into your heart and mind and who can know the effects your actions have had against the intent of those actions.

Let me ask you a question, if you unthinkingly pull out in your car and cause an accident that kills someone who's death results in widespread disaster is this better or worse than someone who deliberately plots to kill an old man with no family who's passing causes barely a ripple? Then consider whether it makes a difference whether the old man is a saint or a sinner or whether the fact you've deliberately plotted to kill is enough to damn you.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451888 wrote: Which is exactly why such a balance could only be achieved by a God who can see into your heart and mind and who can know the effects your actions have had against the intent of those actions.

Let me ask you a question, if you unthinkingly pull out in your car and cause an accident that kills someone who's death results in widespread disaster is this better or worse than someone who deliberately plots to kill an old man with no family who's passing causes barely a ripple? Then consider whether it makes a difference whether the old man is a saint or a sinner or whether the fact you've deliberately plotted to kill is enough to damn you.


It is worse for society, if I kill the person in the car by accident, but it is better for me if i kill by accident.

Whether the old man is Saint, or sinner, is relevant to the old man's soul. But to me it is not relevant.

While the act of deliberate murder is damnable, forgiveness is available: as long as the being doing the damning is willing to offer it.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451940 wrote: It is worse for society, if I kill the person in the car by accident, but it is better for me if i kill by accident.

Whether the old man is Saint, or sinner, is relevant to the old man's soul. But to me it is not relevant.

While the act of deliberate murder is damnable, forgiveness is available: as long as the being doing the damning is willing to offer it.


So the man who kills a Hitler or a Pol Pot to stop the atrocities is just as damn'd as the man who kills a Mother Theresa for the notoriety it will bring him?

And Stalin could have walked into Heaven despite the millions he killed just by begging forgiveness of his deathbed?

How is this a better system that the one I proposed?
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bruv »

Thank you Bryn for keeping sheep penned in this thread.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1451954 wrote: So the man who kills a Hitler or a Pol Pot to stop the atrocities is just as damn'd as the man who kills a Mother Theresa for the notoriety it will bring him?

And Stalin could have walked into Heaven despite the millions he killed just by begging forgiveness of his deathbed?

How is this a better system that the one I proposed?


Yes to number 1, as you cannot cure evil with evil: you only continue its cycle.

Begging for forgiveness in no ways is the terms for forgiveness, turning from sin is what Jesus and the scriptures teaches...

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

It is better because it demands man to walk upright and allows men the opportunity to be forgiven: if they turn/change.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1451967 wrote: Yes to number 1, as you cannot cure evil with evil: you only continue its cycle.

Begging for forgiveness in no ways is the terms for forgiveness, turning from sin is what Jesus and the scriptures teaches...

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

It is better because it demands man to walk upright and allows men the opportunity to be forgiven: if they turn/change.


Number 1 is a difficult one - do you pass all responsibility for fate on to God as several of the more extreme Jewish and Islamic sects do (my actions are unimportant, what happens is as God wills) or do you believe that God helps those who help themselves? Personally I would not step out into a busy road saying "if God wants me to survive then He will protect me" - I would watch for a gap in the traffic. In the same way, if I saw evil and had a chance to stop it then I would take that as God's will and do so.

I do not see Ezekiel as what Jesus teaches - it is what the Scriptures say but it is NOT what Jesus teaches. Do you not accept that the sinner on the cross was accepted into Heaven?

I agree, Jesus came not to change the law but to explain the law but those explanations were not fully in accord with the Old Testament - Jesus teaches cannot always be proven by quotes from the Old Testament.

The New Testament is quite clear, believe in Jesus and repent and you will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1452189 wrote: Number 1 is a difficult one - do you pass all responsibility for fate on to God as several of the more extreme Jewish and Islamic sects do (my actions are unimportant, what happens is as God wills) or do you believe that God helps those who help themselves? Personally I would not step out into a busy road saying "if God wants me to survive then He will protect me" - I would watch for a gap in the traffic. In the same way, if I saw evil and had a chance to stop it then I would take that as God's will and do so.

I do not see Ezekiel as what Jesus teaches - it is what the Scriptures say but it is NOT what Jesus teaches. Do you not accept that the sinner on the cross was accepted into Heaven?

I agree, Jesus came not to change the law but to explain the law but those explanations were not fully in accord with the Old Testament - Jesus teaches cannot always be proven by quotes from the Old Testament.

The New Testament is quite clear, believe in Jesus and repent and you will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.


I don't do either of your 2 suggestions in paragraph 1: I think humans are to blame for their own actions and it is a question of how to change the cycle of corruption within humans and I see the only way to do that is by being willing to die (as Jesus, and the early Christians that were thrown to the lions,did.) rather then fight. I do not wish harm towards anyone and am not a threat to them and thus I only seek their redemption from the corruption that they have learned to embrace and see the only way for that to be accomplished by showing them love: despite their sins.

My problem with your statement, "In the same way, if I saw evil and had a chance to stop it then I would take that as God's will and do so", is that you don't stop evil by doing evil: you continue it. What you are suggesting is that it is okay to do harm if it stops more harm from being done and I think that all people who use force to control others are evil. While a person may kill me, I will not kill them, no matter what they have done to me, my family, or others. If I thought it right to kill others, that oppress me and others, I would have to start a campaign to kill every politician and banker that walks on the face of the earth. And while I see them as the cause of over 98% of all the problems that exists on the earth, I don't see that as being the right solution to the problem.

If we are going to stop the oppression of others, we must stop supporting the actions of oppressors and speak against their actions. I am not saying we should not use wisdom, in doing so, but we should not be willing to become them: by acting in a greater or lesser way as them. Gandhi is a good example of what I am suggesting, unfortunately he was assassinated within a couple years of liberating India from England and failed to have others continue the fulfillment of his vision. Jesus, on the other hand, was wiser: in that he trained his followers in his teachings and let them do the work. I think ideally, we need to find ways to stop supporting oppression and make the evil of oppressors actions, and the wrong they are committing, as clear and then men will condemn those actions and stop supporting the oppression that they now embrace.

I think if a person can do good then they are obligated to do so. But where a person is restricted from doing good (ie: they are hanging on a cross with no way down) then commitment to change is acceptable if the physical actions are restricted.

I am accustom to telling people if you want to know what you believe look at your actions they are a true mirror of your beliefs. In the same way, can one really say that they believe Jesus came from God and not obey Jesus' teachings, as though they are God's? Believing in Jesus is believing that his message is God's and it demands obedience to it or it is proof that a person really doesn't believe in Jesus. Jesus never went around telling people he was going to die on a cross and if you believe in his sacrifice you will be saved, on the other hand, he did go around claiming his message was from God and that if you failed to obey it: then you would be judged by his message; believing in Jesus, is believing his authority/words/teachings are from God and failure to embrace them is really proof of ones not believing in Jesus.

P.S. I see Jesus as having preached a New Covenant, not the Old one over again: as his words contradicted Moses on several occasions. Actually once they came saying to him Moses said... what do you say? Why did they care what he said? It was because they knew he claimed to be the Messiah and that the Messiah was to establish a New Covenant: as King.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1452229 wrote: I don't do either of your 2 suggestions in paragraph 1: I think humans are to blame for their own actions and it is a question of how to change the cycle of corruption within humans and I see the only way to do that is by being willing to die (as Jesus, and the early Christians that were thrown to the lions,did.) rather then fight. I do not wish harm towards anyone and am not a threat to them and thus I only seek their redemption from the corruption that they have learned to embrace and see the only way for that to be accomplished by showing them love: despite their sins.

My problem with your statement, "In the same way, if I saw evil and had a chance to stop it then I would take that as God's will and do so", is that you don't stop evil by doing evil: you continue it. What you are suggesting is that it is okay to do harm if it stops more harm from being done and I think that all people who use force to control others are evil. While a person may kill me, I will not kill them, no matter what they have done to me, my family, or others. If I thought it right to kill others, that oppress me and others, I would have to start a campaign to kill every politician and banker that walks on the face of the earth. And while I see them as the cause of over 98% of all the problems that exists on the earth, I don't see that as being the right solution to the problem.

If we are going to stop the oppression of others, we must stop supporting the actions of oppressors and speak against their actions. I am not saying we should not use wisdom, in doing so, but we should not be willing to become them: by acting in a greater or lesser way as them. Gandhi is a good example of what I am suggesting, unfortunately he was assassinated within a couple years of liberating India from England and failed to have others continue the fulfillment of his vision. Jesus, on the other hand, was wiser: in that he trained his followers in his teachings and let them do the work. I think ideally, we need to find ways to stop supporting oppression and make the evil of oppressors actions, and the wrong they are committing, as clear and then men will condemn those actions and stop supporting the oppression that they now embrace.

I think if a person can do good then they are obligated to do so. But where a person is restricted from doing good (ie: they are hanging on a cross with no way down) then commitment to change is acceptable if the physical actions are restricted.

I am accustom to telling people if you want to know what you believe look at your actions they are a true mirror of your beliefs. In the same way, can one really say that they believe Jesus came from God and not obey Jesus' teachings, as though they are God's? Believing in Jesus is believing that his message is God's and it demands obedience to it or it is proof that a person really doesn't believe in Jesus. Jesus never went around telling people he was going to die on a cross and if you believe in his sacrifice you will be saved, on the other hand, he did go around claiming his message was from God and that if you failed to obey it: then you would be judged by his message; believing in Jesus, is believing his authority/words/teachings are from God and failure to embrace them is really proof of ones not believing in Jesus.

P.S. I see Jesus as having preached a New Covenant, not the Old one over again: as his words contradicted Moses on several occasions. Actually once they came saying to him Moses said... what do you say? Why did they care what he said? It was because they knew he claimed to be the Messiah and that the Messiah was to establish a New Covenant: as King.


To a large extent I agree with you in that I have always been an opponent of violence, including the use of the death penalty, but your example is more than a little over the top. I gave two very specific cases where a single individual was responsible for the death of millions and where stopping that individual had a very high possibility of stopping the killing - that hardly equates to the indiscriminate killing of every politician and banker that walks the face of the Earth.

Gandhi is an excellent example of how to approach oppression but that involved applying a relatively small amount of pressure over a long period of time - there are situations where the only viable option is to apply a relatively large amount of force over a short period of time in order to have any effect.

As to you PS, if this is the case why do you use quotes from the OT to demonstrate the teachings of Jesus?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Doing a poll: no commentary needed.

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1452271 wrote: To a large extent I agree with you in that I have always been an opponent of violence, including the use of the death penalty, but your example is more than a little over the top. I gave two very specific cases where a single individual was responsible for the death of millions and where stopping that individual had a very high possibility of stopping the killing - that hardly equates to the indiscriminate killing of every politician and banker that walks the face of the Earth.

Gandhi is an excellent example of how to approach oppression but that involved applying a relatively small amount of pressure over a long period of time - there are situations where the only viable option is to apply a relatively large amount of force over a short period of time in order to have any effect.

As to you PS, if this is the case why do you use quotes from the OT to demonstrate the teachings of Jesus?


The truth is, the acceptance of men controlling and exploiting men (through government and the banking system), is what lead to the creation of Hitler. If you believe Hitler's death solved anything, I point to all the other brutal regimes both before and after Hitler and again state that the only way to end the creation of such evil men, is to preach against the evil of men controlling men; Until we come to clearly see the wrong in the existence of government: men will continue to justify controlling and exploiting others.

As for my use of the Old Testament, I have 2 points that I would like to make:

1.) The bible today is broken up into 2 main sections, the Old Testament/covenant and the New testament/covenant. The Old Testament/Covenant is truly just the words that were spoken by Moses, that the children of Israel agreed to: while they were in the wilderness. While there are 39 books in the old testament part of the bible, it is the words of Moses that the children of Israel covenanted/agreed to, that actually make up that covenant/agreement.

We can use the 39 books to gain insight into the children of Israel's mind, history, and beliefs, but Christ alone is the final authority on what God expects of us. The old testament has value in laying a foundation for the coming of the Christ and showing us God's expectations of holiness: but it fails to help us to know how to accomplish it in a practical way.

2.) Translators seem to have had more troubles translating Greek, then they did Hebrew, The fact that there are so many apparent contradictions in the New Testament (never mind the real ones), makes it hard to use the teachings of Jesus without people contradicting Jesus' own statements. If one keeps in mind that any contradiction must clearly be understood, before one can have clarity on any subject, we can understand the errors most people make, in quoting Jesus words, are mainly errors in translating from the Greek. Unfortunately Most people negate Jesus' words that appear to contradict what they believe: instead of looking deeper into the issue.

For this reason I often use some of the words that are in the books of the Old Testament, to help validate what might be translated in a way that fails to give clarity to people in the English translation of Jesus' words.

Some examples of words that cause confusion and which fail to give people clarity on important issues, in Jesus' teachings, are words like "believe" and "repent". Both of these words are more often then not used to mean things that the Greek does not substantiate. The Greek word translated "repent" has nothing to do with how a person feels, it is not a change in feelings, but rather a change of mind and actions. One only truly repents by accepting that the way they have been going is wrong and changing their actions. The word translated "believe" almost always comes from a word which is a verb, as oppose to a noun: which is how most people use it. It is the verb "persuasion". As a verb it is a reference to a person's actions, as oppose to mental states of acceptance, which is what most people relate to when they talk about what they believe. The noun form of the same word is normally translated "faith": in the New Testament.

The difficulty in translating between 2 languages often makes understanding what is really meant, in another language, very difficult to explain: without a lesson like this one; and since translators are mainly concerned with giving people a general idea of what is being translated, as appose to educating people as to the exactly what is meant, as the 2 languages fail to properly relate to each other on a word for word bases, they do their best to translate, but things often get "lost in translation": and thus the phrase.



P.S. Sorry for take so long to respond, but I am working nights and my workload has increased and it is very draining.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.

Return to “Christianity”