Christianity and Love

Great Debates
121

I hate to break the news to you, FoG, but you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. Your witnessing is a waste of bandwidth - better men than you have tried, and all have failed.

The “I’m just as sinful as you are!” routine is tired and old. It astounds me to no end that you should believe in such a god that looks down so much on his children. I’m so very, very happy that the god I believe in accepts me for who I am, what I do, and how I live my life.

This, however, really galls me:

For this, I will call you a hypocrite, a liar, and anything else you’d like to add to the list. How dare you stand there and say who can and cannot be Christian. I don’t think your god will be very happy to know you’re meting out his word for him. I know a wide variety of Christian people who would not meet your definition of what is and isn’t acceptable for them to be so, including gay Christians. These are people who have accepted Jesus as their savior, accepted God into their lives, and are honest and sincere about their faith. For you to stand there and say that these people are not Christian is the most un-Christian thing I’ve heard in a long time. I am deeply, deeply offended by this.

And thank you, of course, for relegating my and Dr. Boyfriend’s long-term, committed, caring, loving relationship to “get saved and Jesus will heal you!”

You’re a very, very trite little boor. You also sound like a Chick Tract. Praise the Lord!

Polycarp wrote:

In the name of your God, Poly, please save us from His followers! :smiley: You are, after all, the Voice of Reason™ around here, eh?

You are so out of touch! :wink:

Hmmm, perhaps you and I belive in the same God, eh? :wink: With friends like these… :smiley:

Esprix

122

No need to get annoyed, Esprix; what, like you didn’t expect that response? Don’t expect to get bacon from a bull. :wink: Although FoG managed to make Poly get sarcastic, which takes some doing. And I must say those particular witnessing tactics are about as likely to be effective as emptying the sea with a sieve.

So if someone lies to me, and I am judging them but I want to be merciful, I should slap myself repeatedly on the head, thus fulfilling the demands of justice. Ummm…Okayyy. :rolleyes:

Sorry, dear, but dodging the question doesn’t really work. Perfectly merciful and perfectly just are logically impossible to exist at the same time, at least by the defintion I am aware of (perfectly just==fair punishment; perfectly merciful==not fair punishment). When someone asks if God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it, do you say “God is capable of things we can’t even imagine?” Not if you don’t want to get shredded by your questioner. The best response is “God can do anything logically possible. A rock so big He can’t lift it is logically impossible.” Now, it certainly seems to me that a simultaneously perfectly just and perfectly merciful God is logically impossible (if a God is only just some of the time, He is not perfectly just). If it is logically impossible, God can’t be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful–end of story.

Hell, I’ll give you three, all three of which I think solve the sin and justice and love dilemna more effectively and intuitively than the fundamentalist slant. ::cracking knuckles:: OK, here goes:

Perfectly Just
God administers justice perfectly fairly. Good deeds are rewarded, bad ones are punished, both fairly; i.e., eternal torture for a fib is not a fair punishment. God knows all extenuating circumstances and takes them into account, so someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed their child is not as sinful as someone who steals from little old ladies. Sin is defined as something that hurts another, which removes the “sin” status from things like homosexuality or cheeseburgers. (Hey, I’m God, I can do this, I made the rules for what was sin and what wasn’t in the first place.) If what you do hurts you, why then, you’ve already been punished, right? The innocent are not required to suffer to spare the guilty, for this is manifestly unjust. Love or knowledge of God makes no difference; this is justice, and no just judge would mete out imperfect justice simply because that person loved them. The guilty must make reparation as best they can to those they have injured, and regret their cruel actions.
Advantages over fundamentalist system: The innocent do not suffer for the guilty. Everyone is punished/rewarded fairly. Hitler gets what he deserves; people who do their best to be good and honest and loving do not burn forever in a lake of fire. Love of God is freely given, since there are no consequences for loving/not loving Him.

Perfectly Merciful
The innocent do not suffer to spare the guilty; God is perfectly merciful, everyone gets spared. Hey, that’s supposedly what He wants, right?
Advantages over fundamentalist system: Hitler gets in, yes, but he can get in under the fundamentalist system too, just by saying the magic words. This has the advantage that Ghandi does not suffer eternally in Hell. Better to spare the guilty than eternally punish the decent, right? Love of God can be given freely, without threat.
Sorta Merciful
The innocent do not suffer to spare the guilty. Most are let off a little easy for their sins; if you’re an unremitting bastard you might just end up dead forever, though. The guilty must make reparation as best they can to those they have injured, and regret their cruel actions.
Advantages over fundamentalist system: Hitler’s dead, never gets another chance. The innocent do not suffer for the guilty. People who honestly try to be good get in, and can learn about God without the threat of eternal suffering–they can truly love Him freely.

I am curious about the fundamentalist system. I am learning a little more about it, through you. It has too many illogical axioms, IMHO, although a clever spin doctor could make them sound really good.

123

gaudere said:

Well, my definitions (from http://www.dictionary.com ) are:

and

I don’t see any necessary conflict. God could be honorable, fair, consistant with being morally right, and She could also be also compassionate, kind and forgiving when dealing out punishment. Mercy could easily be a subset of justice. Just because one has “a disposition to be kind and forgiving” does not mean universal forgiveness. Justice is compassionate when only that punishment which is strictly necessary is dealt. Kindness, forgiveness, and compassion are not at odds with fairness at all.

pinqy

124

Ah, but FoG’s “perfectly merciful” God does not mete out punishment fairly–He spares completely those who believe in Him. Yet He apparently must at the same time fully and absolutely fairly punish these people. I’m not necessarily arguing against anyone else’s “both just and merciful” God, since there are many Gods with many varying attributes and philosophies of sin, punishment and mercy; but I think FoG’s God has a little internal conflict here. :wink:

“Justice is compassionate only when punishment which is strictly necessary is dealt?” If the punishment is not strictly necessary, I would not consider it truly just, although perhaps I misunderstand you. Remember, we are talking about perfectly just and perfectly merciful in coexistence in a God with all the attributes that FoG says he does. My explanation of a “perfectly” just God above is a God that is absolutely fair, takes into account all the circumstances, but does not alleviate the punishment fairly due. I agree that mercy can coexist with justice, but not if you have perfection in both simultaneously. Fairly giving what is properly due can coexist with compassion, since God would understand the circumstances and take them into account; but God cannot both fully understand all the circumstances that caused a person to, say, murder someone, decide that that person needs to be punished, and then not punish them and still be considered perfectly just. IMHO.

125

Before I got into taking perfection, justice, and mercy to their extremes, I’d want to recruit tomndebb and anyone else with background in scholastic theology and philosophy to examine posts carefully. As you’re well aware, St. Anselm proved God’s existence by totally a priori means, and Descartes wrote a modification of the proof that fitted his system.

“Logic is a means whereby we can go totally wrong with absolute certitude.”

126

Oh, bloody hell, Poly, if I have to debate fifty different interpretations of God, justice and mercy, my head’ll explode. :smiley: I have no intention of absolutely proving or disproving anything, and I certainly do not think that there is a logical proof that precludes the existence of God (although I think FoG’s God is going to require a fair number of rather odd axioms to rescue Himself from illogic); I want to give FoG some stuff to think about. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, I gotta debate. I am thinking that perhaps an understanding of my issues with his interpretation might lead to greater charitability on his part towards those who have found other solutions, and perhaps an open-minded exploration of those “other answers”. Hope springs eternal…

Besides, it’s fun. :slight_smile:

127

(Also, I’m thinking that there must be a better way to resolve the conflict of this particular version of God than what I’ve been given so far, and I’d like to hear it. I’d try to wing it m’self, but not being “to the manner born”, I’d probably just shortcut out and end up with either a weak or inauthentic explanation.)

128

Ok, gaudere, I don’t mean to give you any more things to debate, so I’ll try to make my points clearer. First, I certainly don’t agree with FoG on any of his points. The only problem I have with what you’re saying is that you seem to be saying that “perfectly merciful” means not punishing people who deserve it. I don’t see that at all. Compassion doesn’t mean disregarding transgressions. “Perfect Justice” (if there is such a thing) would also be “perfect mercy” in that absolute fairness and compassion would be an integral part of what is considered fair and just.

pinqy

129

Gaudere wrote:

Yeah, yeah, quiet you. :stuck_out_tongue: A wise man once said, “Fish gotta swim…” {hee hee} :smiley:

Esprix

130

I think I agree that we are using slightly different defintions, although both valid ones; words can be ambiguous. As I am using it here (and as FoG is using it), perfect mercy means a person has been fairly judged and yet you do not give them the fair punishment. As FoG sees it, we all fairly deserve to burn eternally in a lake of fire, so God is merciful to not deep-fry some of us. I kind of have to use his defintion of mercy if I’m going to argue with him.

My conception of perfect judgement does include “extenuating circumstances”, which a perfect judge would know all about, so he can judge truly fairly. This is compassion, technically; i.e., understanding the situation the person was in. I consider it a necessary part of justice, because I do not think stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving child rates on the same scale as stealing a loaf of bread from a starving child. My defintion of justice requires knowledge and understanding of the circumstances to be considered “morally right”; we mortals have to wing it, but a perfect judge would have to perfectly understand every aspect of the situation. I do not think a judge that did not take extenuating circumstances into account would generally be considered “morally right”–we do not consider it morally right to punish the two thefts of a loaf of bread equally. I do not consider this aspect of justice “mercy”; I would not consider it true justice unless it took this into account. Mercy, as I am using it in my argument, means sparing someone, not because there were extenuating circumstances regarding the crime, but just out of sheer clemency. So, if you define mercy as you do, as an understanding of the person and circumstances of the crime, yes, mercy is an intergal part of justice. I simply consider that sort of understanding to be necessary to have truly morally correct justice.

131

Poly said:

Now, now. Trust me, you are never ignored here. It may be that some of us don’t respond to you all the time – in my case usually because Gaudere said what I was gonna say before I could say it (because, of course, being her God, I sent her that information so she could post it). But, in all honesty, you are not ignored.

132

Esprix I will respond to your post first.

You said: “For this, I will call you a hypocrite, a liar, and anything else you’d like to add to the list. How dare you stand there and say who can and cannot be Christian.”

…and…
"For you to stand there and say that these people are not Christian is the most un-Christian thing I’ve heard in a long time. I am deeply, deeply offended by this. "

…and…
“You’re a very, very trite little boor.”

Esprix, I based my assumption about your beliefs on this earlier statement by you: "But you said it yourself - they did have sex. So why am I not allowed to? This is one of the many reasons I’m not Christian. "

Perhaps I misread what you meant by this statement, and for that I am sorry. I don’t believe in using inflammatory language just to “stir the pot”. If I had known that you thought differently than me on the subject, I would not have said what I did at all. I am not out to antagonize you. I am deeply sorry and ask for your forgiveness.

I would like to respond to one other quote by you:
"The “I’m just as sinful as you are!” routine is tired and old. It astounds me to no end that you should believe in such a god that looks down so much on his children. I’m so very, very happy that the god I believe in accepts me for who I am, what I do, and how I live my life. "

Just cuz something’s been said a lot doesn’t make it any less true, Esprix.
You are astounded that I’d believe in a God that looks down on his children. You are totally misrepresenting God in this statement. The fact that we are sinful is just a fact … based on our own choices. God does the opposite of what you said.
Remember in the Bible … Jesus was the ONLY religious leader who did NOT look down on prostitutes, tax collectors, and others who were considered the “dregs of society”. He hung out with them. In fact, it was when OTHERS were looking down on a prostitute and planning to stone her that He said “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” Yeah, he brought out that tired and old concept that everyone is sinful. It cut people to the heart. It was the truth! Everyone left.
Jesus looked at the woman. Notice He didn’t just say, “Go”. He said, “Go, and sin no more.” Jesus didn’t excuse her sin, but He didn’t look down on her either. Jesus had the perfect balance between mercy and justice (no matter what Gaudere thinks! :slight_smile: I’ll respond to your comments next but I couldn’t resist).

You mentioned God’s acceptance. That’s what is so incredible. For those who have given themselves to Him, God sees every crack and crevice of the sins in our heart … and He accepts and loves us anyway. Just like a parent to a child. It is amazing.
It doesn’t mean He’s a wimp who lets us do what we want. It’s just that he loves and accepts us, warts and all.

Okay, I’ll post this and respond to the other posts, or as many as I can!

133

Polycarp: not ignoring you, at least not intentionally. Sorry! I’m only going to quickly comment on this quote: “it involved the simple taking of Jesus Christ as Lord of your life and your Savior, and being baptized (if you haven’t already been) in token of that, and then living the life that you understand Him to want of you.”
Aside from adding baptism, the chief problem I have with this line is the phrase “living the life THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO WANT OF YOU”.
It’s more like “finding out what God wants you to do and then doing it”. Jesus said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I say” in Luke 6:46. It’s not just saying, “Hm, I think I understand God’s will to be X, therefore I will do X”. It’s obeying what He said in the Bible. YES, beyond what’s clear in the Bible there is the issue of the calling on your life, and in THAT context you simply have to try to hear His voice accurately and obey as best you know how.

Oh and I HAVE to comment on this one: “I must give deference to FoG authority on what Christianity is all about.” LOL! For goodness sake don’t give THAT to me!! Leave it with God’s Word where it belongs! Cute. Loved the line in italics at the bottom.

Guadere, you’re next. See next post.

134

Gaudere, Gaudere, Gaudere … are we getting anywhere here? I feel like I’m starting to repeat myself a lot. Either I’m not doing a very good job of explaning certain things, or you’re simply not going to accept them regardless of what I say. I will use this post to make another attempt.

First quote: I said “God pouring out His wrath on Jesus in some way satisfied His justice.” and you responded, “So if someone lies to me, and I am judging them but I want to be merciful, I should slap myself repeatedly on the head, thus fulfilling the demands of justice. Ummm…Okayyy.”
Pardon my bluntness, but I THINK you know that what you said is ridiculous. I am guessing that you are just funning me. On the off chance that you’re not … you have twisted my quote so many directions away from what it said that I don’t even recognize it.
Look, it’s this simple: I sin against God. God pours out His wrath. If I don’t have Jesus in my life, that wrath turns me to toast. If I do, He takes the wrath for me. Where in this picture is God slapping himself repeatedly on the head, hmmmm??

Second quote: “Sorry, dear, but dodging the question doesn’t really work. Perfectly merciful and perfectly just are logically impossible to exist at the same time, at least by the defintion I am aware of (perfectly just==fair punishment; perfectly merciful==not fair punishment).”

It’s okay, dear. :wink: (ohmygosh, im flirtin’ with an athiest! :D). I am not dodging the question, I am merely stating that I don’t know fully how to explain the answer. In glancing at the quote above, I’m not sure that your definitions are correct. On top of that … maybe I made a mistake by using the word “mercy” in the context I did. Maybe, as some others said in later posts, “compassion” is more accurate. It’s one of those that I can’t put my finger on. Let me think on this one some more.

All that I can say is – God IS totally logical. So IF there’s a lack of logic in our understanding of Him, it’s US who are missing something, not God! Gaudere, it’s not dodging the question to point out that there are many many facets of God and there’s no way in this lifetime that we can perfectly analyze and understand all of them. I’m not saying we can’t grasp this particular one, I’m just saying that I don’t know how else to explain it right now. Like I said, I’ll ponder it and see if I can find an answer.

I am curious … do you require God to explain EVERYthing about Himself to you before you will consider allowing Him into your life? We certainly don’t do that with human relationships.

You also said later: “Also, I’m thinking that there must be a better way to resolve the conflict of this particular version of God than what I’ve been given so far, and I’d like to hear it.”
There probably is, and dagnabit I guess I’m just an imperfect vessel :). I’m trying to make it clear Gaudere, I really am. Again, is there ANYTHING someone could say that would really convince you? If there is, I guess I owe it to you to search high and low for clearcut answers. If not though … Im not interested in debating just for the sake of debate.
Let’s get to the real juicy stuff … your three examples of an alternate gospel. Thanks for taking up the challenge. To be honest, it did what I hoped it would. It helps me see what I need to explain clearer.

Actually let me start this response on a new post, this one is getting long. To be continued . . .

135

Gaudere, as I said I’m glad you did these 3 examples. It exposes what I either haven’t made clear, or what you just aren’t willing to accept. Obviously, as I’m sure you would expect, I’ve got to point out problems in all 3. Don’t take it personally :). I know it took thought and time to write these out.

  1. Perfectly Just. I’m going to comment on certain phrases.

a. “Eternal torture for a fib is not a fair punishment”. To YOU it’s not. God is Holy and all sin is serious. But let’s suppose for a second that your statement above is true. Lets suppose that eternal torture for a fib is not a fair punishment. Would you agree that eternal torture for 70,000 fibs would be fair? Or how about a mix of 70,000 fibs, hateful thoughts, lustful thoughts, angry words, etc. What about then? This is a very small teaser for the topic I promise I’ll do someday soon about the sinfulness of man.

b. “Sin is defined as something that hurts another … Hey, I’m God, I can do this, I made the rules for what was sin and what wasn’t in the first place”
Wrong. God is not about rules, as I’ve said countless times before. God is GOOD. He can’t just redefine sin as whatever He wants. Can you imagine God saying, “Well, I think I’m going to redefine sin to suit my tastes. Lets see … lets say that hatred and murder AREN’T sins!” Well as soon as He does this, He ceases to be a good God. God has limited himself to only do what’s good. He isn’t a rulebook.
Bottom line … just whose standard is God supposed to go by if he starts redefining sin? You say sin should be “If I hurt someone, I’ve sinned.” Suppose someone else disagrees? Suppose someone else says, "No lets define sin this way - “If I eat bean burritos at Taco Bell, I’ve sinned.” I have a suggestion - lets just acknowledge that our own creator and the creator of the universe is very capable of defining sin. Not to mention best qualified.

c. “Love or knowledge of God makes no difference; this is justice, and no just judge would mete out imperfect justice simply because that person loved them.”
Whoa! “Love or knowledge of God makes no difference.” This does indeed expose that either I’ve not explained something clearly or you just aren’t gonna accept it. If love or knowledge of God isn’t a factor, then, hello!, everyone is toast! I guess it’s PURE justice, cuz like I’ve said we all deserve punishment. I guess the title of this one is accurate - “Perfectly Just”. If that’s ALL God was, we’d never be able to get close to Him.
I guess you are saying … FORGET the fact that you’ve committed multiple offenses against God, it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to love me or know me, just get on about your business!

I just realized, this one doesn’t meet the criteria. I guess I should’ve made it more clear. The GOAL here, as I stated in an earlier post, is to have a love relationship with God. That’s the WHOLE POINT. My question was INTENDED to ask … do you know of another way for God to have a love relationship with us other than the way He set up? In this scenario you painted, love of God is not only not the goal, it’s not even required! What is the goal supposed to be in this scenario?
2. Perfectly Merciful.
"The innocent do not suffer to spare the guilty; God is perfectly merciful, everyone gets spared. Hey, that’s supposedly what He wants, right? "
But again, God can’t pick and choose who He is. He is not merely perfectly merciful. He is that, plus just, plus loving, etc. This one is just repeating my point in a slightly different way, “If God were all loving, everyone would go to heaven.”
You say “the innocent do not suffer to spare the guilty.” This another thing I’m looking for an alternative for! HOW can the guilty be spared any other way? In this case, I guess you’re saying God is ONLY merciful and so He doesn’t have to mete out justice, etc. But who would want to live for eternity with a wimp? At any rate … doesnt work cuz God is more than just merciful.
3. Sorta Merciful.
“Most are let off a little easy for their sins” So, most people commit thousands of offenses against God during their lifetime, and God just lets them off scot free. Again you say the innocent don’t suffer to spare the guilty. In that case, on what basis is God letting these people off for their sins? Again, that’s what I’m looking for an alternative for. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear.

“People who honestly try to be good get in”. Literally you have to remove God’s justice totally for this to work. I’d say most people honestly try to be good, but no one succeeds. So is “trying” such a great virtue, really? “I’m TRYING not to murder people, REALLY I’m trying hard but gee whiz I keep slipping up!” Obviously a silly example but it makes my point.

In summary, I think I didn’t make my challenge as clear as I should have. If you WANT to try again, with me making it clearer, feel free, but I won’t blame you if you decide not to. Here’s the parameters:

  1. We are all guilty of sin and deserve to die for it.
  2. God loves us and doesnt want to punish us, but He’s just and so He has to punish us.

My challenge is – how else can God reconcile points 1 and 2 other than the way He did it? It’s the same challenge I gave to the Muslims years ago (I can’t remember if I told that story in this post or another one, it’s all blending together in my head).

It’s 1 AM. Can’t believe it. Once I get going it’s hard to stop. Talk to you later. Have a good night.

136

Friend Of God, how long ago was it that you quit looking for answers, and decided that you had all the answers you ever needed? At what point in time did you decide that you just couldn’t learn any more from your fellow man, because you found a book that told you exactly what you wanted to hear, though so many others have followed the same book and come up with entirely different answers?

When did you decide that no-one was worth talking with, but since you did have all the answers, the rest of us needed a good talking to?

Have you decided that humbleness is such a great virtue, that it should be saved for your god alone? Outside of the morality plays that you might encounter in church, nobody likes to be talked down to, and nobody likes to be told that their years of study, examination, and contemplation on morality and religion should be dumped because YOUR version of religion is better theirs just because you say so. Not god-you.

137

slythe, you said: “Friend Of God, how long ago was it that you quit looking for answers, and decided that you had all the answers you ever needed?”

I will quote myself from earlier to give you your answer: “God is capable of things we can’t even imagine. I still have much to learn about it. A thousand years from now in Heaven, I can pretty much guarantee that I’ll still be learning new things about God’s character.”

Another one from still earlier: “Gaudere, I will confess that I have wrestled with how to explain this one. It’s a tough point, and a good one. I will tell you that … are you ready for this? … God is using YOU in MY life! He is using you to cause me to come up with clear and understandable explanations of God’s truth, to a depth that I’ve never done before.”

And another one from earlier tonite: “… there are many many facets of God and there’s no way in this lifetime that we can perfectly analyze and understand all of them. I’m not saying we can’t grasp this particular one, I’m just saying that I don’t know how else to explain it right now. Like I said, I’ll ponder it and see if I can find an answer.”

How, after reading the above, can you conclude that I have quit looking for answers and decided I have all the answers I’ll ever need? How ridiculous! As I said, I have much to learn, for thousands and millions of years to come. And I’m looking forward to the education.
Another quote from you slythe: “…because you found a book that told you exactly what you wanted to hear…” LOL! You should see the many times I’ve read the Bible and literally said “ouch” outloud! There are MANY things in the Bible that I don’t “want to hear” BELIEVE me! But they’re there, so I can’t do anything about it.

Even worse … if God is trying to get something across to me PERSONALLY that I really don’t want to hear, THAT’S a lot harder to ignore! I’ve been through many faith battles where I had to remind myself that God knows best and that I’d be smart to just do as He says and quit worrying.
Next quote: “When did you decide that no-one was worth talking with, but since you did have all the answers, the rest of us needed a good talking to?”
And another related quote: “nobody likes to be talked down to”.

I agree, neither do I. If I’ve given the impression of “talking down to” anyone then I apologize. That is NOT my intent at all. This is not about “me” vs “you”, it’s about “us” vs “God”. I’m in the same boat everyone else is. I don’t think of myself as better than anyone. I need God just as much as anyone else does.
I believe my heart is right, but perhaps some of my methods are not what they should be. Again, apologies to all if they felt “talked down to” or “talked to but not talked with” by me.

Finally, you said “nobody likes to be told that their years of study, examination, and contemplation on morality and religion should be dumped because YOUR version of religion is better theirs just because you say so. Not god-you.”

Well, I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything like this at all. Why should you or anyone believe something just cuz I say so? Who am I for petes sake?!? That’s why I TRY to base what I’m saying on scripture rather than just my own opinion, obviously more successfully sometimes than others.

I would NEVER tell someone to dump their research and just serve God “just cuz I said so”. I somehow don’t think anyone would respond, at least I hope they wouldn’t.

What I WOULD encourage people to do, however, is to keep an open mind. Don’t just assume that because you’ve researched for years that YOU have all the answers either.

As an example, I know of someone who, in the early 70s (1970 - 75 to be exact) did an in-depth study of major world religions. He compared them to see which one made the most sense. One thread he kept seeing over and over was that EVERY religion had something at least nice to say about Jesus. Not all believed He was the Son of God or that He rose from the dead, but they at the very least included Him in their list of Holy men or Gurus or whatever.

So this guy decided to see what Jesus said about Himself, and was shocked to see that Jesus said He was the ONLY way! This began the logic trail for this guy that eventually led him to Jesus. My point, however, is – if I’d met this guy in 1973, I wouldnt’ve said “throw out all your research and just believe what I say.” I would’ve said, “EXAMINE true Christianity. Examine it and compare it to your research.” Which is what he did.

well that’s all for now. I’m signing off.

138

Every religion has something nice to say about Christ??
When you quit repeating sunday school lessons that make you feel good, and actually wish to discuss the issues, I’ll come back to this conversation.

BTW, this is NOT the LBMB, where the miracles flow like wine, and are never questioned by the true believers.

139

Quote: “Every religion has something nice to say about Christ?? When you quit repeating sunday school lessons that make you feel good, and actually wish to discuss the issues, I’ll come back to this conversation.”

Well, every religion this guy studied anyway! If you know of any that are an exception, please enlighten me!

I don’t appreciate the rudeness slythe. There’s no need for it. By the way it wasn’t a Sunday School lesson. It was the life story of a man named Keith Green. The book is called “No Compromise” and it’s a fascinating read, whether you’re a Christian or not.

Quote: “BTW, this is NOT the LBMB, where the miracles flow like wine, and are never questioned by the true believers.”

It’s NOT???

140

I’m just going to post an alternate perspective for anyone who wishes to read it on why God’s innocent death saves guilty men.

Consider man(kind) as all one fallen race – it would seem God does, since the sin of Adam & Eve is still imputed to us today (Original Sin). We remain under a curse and are sinful. It should hopefully be clear by now that God requires perfection for us to remain with Him – this is the Holiness that FoG was talking about. Any trace of sin will eventually come between us and God, so we cannot hope to be with God as long as we are under the curse of sin.

For God to wave His hands and make it all better removes our free will in the matter (if sin doesn’t matter, then we cannot exercise free will by sinning), which as Polycarp explained is not the way God wants it.

Still, God is unhappy with this state of affairs and so salvation is provided. Since the sin was that of a man, the salvation is that of a man, and this is the important part. It’s not just God killing Himself, it’s God becoming a man, living a perfect life, and then dying as a man. He is the one who becomes the Savior of the whole race, just as Adam brought sin on all men. One could say only God could have lived this perfect life, so He was the one who had to do this.

So, we have one man (Adam) bringing sin and death to many, and one man (Jesus, the Christ) bringing life and restitution for that sin by being a “ransom for many”.

Most of what I’ve said here can be examined in the Bible, if you care to read it, specifically 1 Cor. 15:20-23, Hebrews 7, Romans 5:12ff.
panama jack

Finally all of you, live in harmony with one another, be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. - 1 Peter 3:8