DoctorNO said:
What Christians Believe
- Thread starter JesusisLord51
- Start date
I think that what Christians believe is whatever serves them at the moment. Someone asked why a Moslem cannot promote the idea of god without quoting the quaran, but a Christian can without quoting the bible. The reason for this is that the bible is such a terribly flawed document full of gaps and contradictions that have begged to be filled in ever since its compilation. The quran however is a much tighter composition that goes down a lot easier and is much easier to lean on. Because of this more concrete authority Isalm will be able to stay the same longer keeping the same values, Christianity will change to serve the moment because most of it is peoples inventions and explanations for why the bible is so screwed up.
Medicine Woman said:
But the quran was referring to that myth of miracle-working jesus son of mary, the source of gospels, who got involved in all that crucifixion shit. The quran even added its own myth on the already popular myth of jesus by claiming that he talked on his way out his momma's vagina.
Have you successfully escaped the frying pan only to land on the hot coals, Medicine Woman???
DoctorNO said:
The Quran is just as flawed as the bible if you look more closely. Its only advantage is that the muslims did not make the same mistake as the christians did by compiling the newer invention with the older inventions. Thus the quran only has to deal with the ideas of just one auther. Thus explains the fewer contradictions.
But for a tiny authored book the quran suggests as much more atrocities than the multi-authored branch-thick bible.
But for a tiny authored book the quran suggests as much more atrocities than the multi-authored branch-thick bible.
DoctorNO said:
Mystech said:
They either are:
A: Just nice people who try to take some of the suffering out of this world
B: Doing it to look good and feel respected
Kat
Why is that an imperfection? Many gay people have beautiful loving and perfect relationships. It is also quite natural. Note that homosexuality is also quite widespread in the animal kingdom.
Biologically speaking it's an imperfection. I have a gay uncle so hopefully I'm not sounding homophobic even though I don't like the idea of what they do together. Biologically men and women go together to reproduce. It's got to do with the size of a part of the brain that determines who we are attracted to. In gay people it is the opposite of what it should be therefore they are attracted to their own gender. It's naturally occuring but it's still a biological imperfection.
Note also that it is primarily the biggots and intolerance of the religionists that make this a problem.
I know, that was why I was trying to show these people that it is wrong to be intolerant of homosexuals when if defined by their beliefs, god must have created gay people. If their god created these gay people, why do they then have a problem with them? I don't know. I don't feel I'm wording this to well.
Why is that an imperfection? Many gay people have beautiful loving and perfect relationships. It is also quite natural. Note that homosexuality is also quite widespread in the animal kingdom.
Biologically speaking it's an imperfection. I have a gay uncle so hopefully I'm not sounding homophobic even though I don't like the idea of what they do together. Biologically men and women go together to reproduce. It's got to do with the size of a part of the brain that determines who we are attracted to. In gay people it is the opposite of what it should be therefore they are attracted to their own gender. It's naturally occuring but it's still a biological imperfection.
Note also that it is primarily the biggots and intolerance of the religionists that make this a problem.
I know, that was why I was trying to show these people that it is wrong to be intolerant of homosexuals when if defined by their beliefs, god must have created gay people. If their god created these gay people, why do they then have a problem with them? I don't know. I don't feel I'm wording this to well.
alain said:
You aren't. But when they were cast out of Eden it became human nature to sin. Sinning was YOUR choice. You did it. Fortunately, Jesus is your alternative.
alain said:
You're right. I do. Because we have free will, it's our problem. But now you have the choice to accept Jesus and be saved from an eternity of burning or not, because of what He did for you. So I'm not complaining.
SpyMoose said:
Contradictions and gaps? Show me them, and we'll clear them up. And I'd be happy to use bible verses, should you not be comfortable taking my word for it.
BMW-Guy said:
Please be considerate and quote me on what I actually type? Danke.
atheroy said:
"But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." -Genesis 2:17 NIV
God made the consequences clear.
Adam and Eve did have perfect free will. They had the choice to obey or disobey God. God told them explicitly not to touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Whether they knew it was evil to do so or not didn't matter. They still had the free will to do it or not. And God said not to.
atheroy said:
That was one of the biggest doubts I had about my religion until I began a bible study of the book of Romans:
ROMANS 2:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
atheroy said:
Why did Jesus have to die in order for me to go to heaven?
Because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Though Jesus never sinned (1 Peter. 2:22), He bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) and died. He died in our place. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us.
Two things happen when we sin: one to God and one to ourselves. When we sin, God is offended. Why? Because it is His Law that we are breaking. Also, when we sin we are killed. We don't die right there on the spot, we will face a death that is far more severe. Sin kills us (Rom. 6:23) by causing eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). God hates sin (Hab. 1:13) and sin must be punished. Since we are unable to please God because we are all sinners, He made an offering that is pleasing to Him. That offering was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. There was no other way. If there were, God would have done it.
-www.carm.org
atheroy said:
There are no non-biblical accounts to the resurrection
First of all, saying that there are no non biblical accounts of the resurrection does not invalidate the resurrection. The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones.
Second, it is not accurate to say that there are no extra biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were written well after the fact. This, therefore, tends to invalidate the reliability of these extra biblical accounts according to the critics. But if the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection.
Third, how do you have witnesses to the resurrection? Even the disciples didn't see Him rise from the dead. Instead, they saw Him after He had risen, as was evidenced by the wounds in His hands and side when He appeared to them (John 20:27). He appeared to those who most needed to see Him. They were the ones who had spent years with Him, watching Him do miracles, watching Him heal the sick, and teaching great wisdom and love. After Jesus died, their faith in Him had been shattered. It was necessary that Jesus appear to them in order to establish the truth of who He said He was; namely, God in flesh (John 8:24,58; 10:30-33).
Fourth, Jesus would have to appear only to those who had seen Him before His crucifixion since appearing to someone who had never seen Him nor knew that He died, would prove nothing. This means that the ones whom Jesus would appear to were those who were following Him in the area of Israel. This further means that at best, other records of His resurrection would have to be hearsay, written well after the fact, by those who did not know Jesus.
Fifth, we do have non-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
No sign would be given
Jesus typically would not demonstrate anything miraculous to those who refused to believe in Him. It is, therefore, consistent with Jesus' method to demonstrate Himself to those who were in need of Him and who did not mock Him and doubt Him. Like it or not, this is how He operated. It would be logical to assume that He would deal in the same manner after His resurrection and only appear to those who knew Him and followed Him. For verification of Jesus' denial to those who doubted him, please note the following quotes.
"And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12And sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." 13And leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side," (Mark 8:11-13).
"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Matt. 12:38-40).
"And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2But He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3"And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away," (Matt. 16:1).
"For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I should heal them," (Matt. 13:15).
Jesus plainly taught that He would not "perform" for those who denied Him. He did, however, do public miracles in order to validate who He was, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:24; 8:58). This great truth is a matter of faith and is not something proven with a calculator or a camera. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God which, in that culture, meant to claim equality with God (John 5:18). Jesus said that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) a statement that infuriated the Jews who were familiar with God's self description to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when He said, "I AM that I AM. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." It is a claim made real by evidence. The evidence was His miracles.
Conclusion
The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord. It was based upon the truth that they had seen.
-www.carm.org <- Best site around about christianity
atheroy said:
I didn't say you couldn't do good things without God. I'm saying to be perfectly good you need God. And perfectly good is God's standard for heaven. Only the perfectly good get in. And I have already explained how to be perfectly good.
Yours in Christ,
Kevin
Kevin, thanks for replying,
"But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
This is not a command. This is advice. And in any case adam and even wouldn't even understand the concept of death.
Adam and Eve did have perfect free will.
But that is not indicated by adam and eve's actions. If someone you respected told you not to eat some fruit because it would cause your death you wouldn't eat it. Simple. They can't have understood the ramifications of what they were doing or they wouldn't have done it. They weren't able to comprehend what they were doing so they didn't have perfect free will because they chose the wrong thing to do.
They had the choice to obey or disobey God. God told them explicitly not to touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The sentence you quote isn't a command "But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.". 'Must' or 'must not' is used when giving advice or when requesting something. God doesn't command adam or eve to do anything but rather he gives advice not to eat the fruit of a specific tree. Therefore adam and eve's actions cannot be viewed as sinful as they did nothing wrong. Did the sin stem from the fact that they were now able to perceive right and wrong?
Whether they knew it was evil to do so or not didn't matter. They still had the free will to do it or not. And God said not to.
The action was not evil. The intention wasn't evil. Adam and eve did not disobey any command. If god had said "I command you not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." I wouldn't be nit picking; but even the last bit of that sentence indicates a warning and not condemnation. In any case god said I wouldn't if I were you, not "not to".
Since we are unable to please God because we are all sinners, He made an offering that is pleasing to Him. That offering was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. There was no other way. If there were, God would have done it.
An offer that was pleasing to him- the butchery of his son. I apologise if I'm missing something and I don't understand why an all powerful god was pleased by the butchery of his son; or the fact that an all powerful god had no other way to do it when by definition an all powerful god can do anything any way he wants to.
The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed?
They would do that to justify all of their beliefs while simultaneously making themselves all martyrs- it makes perfect sense.
I'm sorry but your quotes didn't clear up for me whether or not everyone went to hell including adam and eve during the time between jesus and adam and eve. Is it a yes or no question?
a
"But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
This is not a command. This is advice. And in any case adam and even wouldn't even understand the concept of death.
Adam and Eve did have perfect free will.
But that is not indicated by adam and eve's actions. If someone you respected told you not to eat some fruit because it would cause your death you wouldn't eat it. Simple. They can't have understood the ramifications of what they were doing or they wouldn't have done it. They weren't able to comprehend what they were doing so they didn't have perfect free will because they chose the wrong thing to do.
They had the choice to obey or disobey God. God told them explicitly not to touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The sentence you quote isn't a command "But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.". 'Must' or 'must not' is used when giving advice or when requesting something. God doesn't command adam or eve to do anything but rather he gives advice not to eat the fruit of a specific tree. Therefore adam and eve's actions cannot be viewed as sinful as they did nothing wrong. Did the sin stem from the fact that they were now able to perceive right and wrong?
Whether they knew it was evil to do so or not didn't matter. They still had the free will to do it or not. And God said not to.
The action was not evil. The intention wasn't evil. Adam and eve did not disobey any command. If god had said "I command you not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." I wouldn't be nit picking; but even the last bit of that sentence indicates a warning and not condemnation. In any case god said I wouldn't if I were you, not "not to".
Since we are unable to please God because we are all sinners, He made an offering that is pleasing to Him. That offering was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. There was no other way. If there were, God would have done it.
An offer that was pleasing to him- the butchery of his son. I apologise if I'm missing something and I don't understand why an all powerful god was pleased by the butchery of his son; or the fact that an all powerful god had no other way to do it when by definition an all powerful god can do anything any way he wants to.
The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed?
They would do that to justify all of their beliefs while simultaneously making themselves all martyrs- it makes perfect sense.
I'm sorry but your quotes didn't clear up for me whether or not everyone went to hell including adam and eve during the time between jesus and adam and eve. Is it a yes or no question?
a
to medicine woman/spymouse/doctorNo/jesusislord51
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO EL SUPREMO Y EL DIABLO
the bible and the qur'an are just books written by man (and not too well I might add. they are contradictory and dangerous inciting people to kill hate
all in the name of an idol (tho shalt not worship false idols (if they are not worshiping a false idol)then the sky is green with pink polka dots)
they should have a health warning on DANGER OF DEATH DO NOT READ.
the grimms fairy tales are much more interesting
your just arguing the point and no ones going to change there minds
there a'int no heaven and there a'int no hell except the one we're in and we know to well (UB40 1981)WE'RE ALL HUMAN as my mum said we're all the same in the dark( and never a true word said )
el supremo el diablo numero uno(not 51)
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO EL SUPREMO Y EL DIABLO
the bible and the qur'an are just books written by man (and not too well I might add. they are contradictory and dangerous inciting people to kill hate
all in the name of an idol (tho shalt not worship false idols (if they are not worshiping a false idol)then the sky is green with pink polka dots)
they should have a health warning on DANGER OF DEATH DO NOT READ.
the grimms fairy tales are much more interesting
your just arguing the point and no ones going to change there minds
there a'int no heaven and there a'int no hell except the one we're in and we know to well (UB40 1981)WE'RE ALL HUMAN as my mum said we're all the same in the dark( and never a true word said )
el supremo el diablo numero uno(not 51)
Medicine Woman said:But you are only speculating on this. And this speculation doesn’t make sense. For how on earth would the crowd mistake Barabbas or Simon for Jesus? Unless that person was Jesus’ twin. Or nobody in the crowd knows how jesus looks like.DoctorNO said:
But an infant talking jesus wasn’t confirmed by any historian either. And the quran also mentioned the crucifixion, although a different version, which is still evident that mohammad plagiarized from Christianity. You see the point?Medicine Woman said:
1. Both the bible & the quran claims a miracle worker by the name of jesus. Which is surprisingly unconfirmed by roman historians who would have investigated supernatural occurrences within the boundaries of their empire.
2. Both bible and the quran mentioned the crucifixion.
3. The quran deviated from bible version by covering up with a wilder & more senseless explanation… the old switcharooo. Given the fact that mobs are bloodthirsty and would study the features of jesus as they enjoy seeing him suffer.
Yeah amen to that.Medicine Woman said:
Well don’t judge that issue until you researched it yourself.Medicine Woman said:
Wellwe all know how Christianity feels about homosexuality. But its treatment of gays is not much different than many of the pagans like the Chinese and the Japanese. Disgust, discrimination and frustration.Medicine Woman said:
Medicine Woman said:
I was wrong. Sorry.