Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

I don't understand your objection then. I said that

quote:

---

we must work on the basis that Christ exists, he his divine, the Bible is the Holy inspired word of God and so on.

---

in order to arrive at a conclusion as whether or not Christ is cruel. If I am reading you right, you are saying that Christ isn't cruel, because He forgives us? To arrive that conclusion we have worked on the basis that Christ exists, he is divine...etc havent we?

Well you are wrong Mr Ex, simple as that. And so is jar. But of course you are entitled to your opinion. YES, many WERE saved before Christ, as I've acknowledged, by FAITH in God, and through faith invested in SACRIFICE as required by God, and by looking forward to the Redeemer who was promised in Eden as well as by the prophets of Israel. This is clear from the Old Testament.In other words by BELIEF.I've shown the emphasis placed on BELIEF by Jesus and the New Testament writers as well as in the Old Testament.Romans 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent?NOBODY is saved who denies God. Jesus didn't come and preach faith and belief to save those who have no faith or belief in Him. God didn't inspire the entire record of the Israelites and give us His written word to save those who have no faith or belief in Him.That is unbelievably absurd. For YOUR version of things to be true NONE of these things needed to have been done. Your version of the meaning of the great works of Christ contradicts the Bible and the entire history of Christianity.

GOD isn't cruel. He forgives everyone regardless of whether or not they believe in him. But it's still possible for you to screw it up through behavior.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Explain please why Jesus' first recorded words are "REPENT AND BELIEVE?"

Wow, that was clever.You seemed to have forgetten to read on further... Consequently, this quote comes from Psalm 19:4.The whole passage goes as this: Or, in other words, how is the word of God heard according to Paul?Edit to clarify... By the way Faith, this was an exact passage I had used before to indicate that all people can hear the word of God even if they don't know who Jesus is. Consequently, Paul is using it here in Romans in the exact same context that I've used it too -- and it's used in the same exact context as pertaining to salvation. It seems to me that this assertion above is incorrect too. The Scriptures are actually contradicting you here as well in the exact same Romans passage: How so? I've never denied that Jesus was the savior. I've alos explained why I felt that Jesus was the savior -- because he "literally" oppenned the door to heaven. I've only denied your version of what it means for Christ to be the savior. Yeah...and so are you. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-09-2005 01:27 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-09-2005 02:01 AM

Yes I remember how you misused that scripture. For your (and jar's) version of salvation to be true there was absolutely no need for God to reveal one word of his plans or to preach the importance of faith and belief.

Wow, Faith, here we go again. Maybe you're misusing the Scripture? No. That's not exactly true either. Like I said before, if Christ hadn't died and been resurrected, all these things would be pointless -- INCLUDING OUR FAITH IN GOD.Furthermore, when he came and preached, in my opinion, he preached the clear message of God without all the overlaying polytheisms and whatever other errors existed. In other words, God came in person and verified the true faith -- the faith which was most likely to allow one into God's presence.I've never said there weren't dangerous practices in other religions. For example, if a culture regularly sacrificed people or children on alters, then they are held accountable for that because they know in their hearts (because God put it in their hearts from the beginning) that killing is wrong. In order for them to engage in this practice, they have to willingly go against the Holy Spirit to do so.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-09-2005 01:51 AM

Hi Jar,I know that you have your own personal interpretation of scripture, which is not always to everyone's liking, but, could you explain this belief for me? IYO, what is it that God is going to forgive Christians and non-Christians for?Cheers.Brian.

But he could have died and been resurrected and NOBODY KNOW A THING ABOUT IT and the purpose would have been accomplished according to the way you and jar talk about it. Salvation in your view does not depend upon anybody's knowing anything about Christ. Salvation would be given to those who did good works based on his resurrection whether anybody believed or not or knew anything about it.The Bible however is adamant that the gospel is to be PREACHED. What's the point of the preaching if people are saved without hearing the gospel?What good does it do if Jesus "preached the clear message of God" without common errors, as you say, if nobody needs to know that message or believe it in order to be saved?And if the necessary revelation for salvation is already given in nature, as you've argued elsewhere, there was no need for him to come at all despite your insistence on the value of his life and resurrection.No my interpretation of scripture is not wrong. Yours is.We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I understand your objection to the conclusion "Christ is cruel". I don't understand your objection that in order to have the discussion "we must work on the basis that Christ exists". If we reject that Christ exists we cannot come to the conclusion that he is cruel, because a non-existant entity cannot be cruel...causing the debate to come to a crashing halt.I have a feeling we're arguing at cross-purposes.

I thought I must have misunderstood this point the first time you said this, but now you say it again and so I'm curious what you mean. How does being non-existent nullify cruelty? Was the overseer in Cool Hand Luke not cruel because, being fictional, he was non-existent?I may have misinterpreted Jar, but I didn't reach the same interpretation you did. To me he isn't arguing that Christ is non-existent, but that one needn't believe that Christ was a real person in order to benefit from his death for our sins. In other words, if it was a real event that really happened, then whether you believe it happened makes no difference. Reality doesn't care what you believe.And so I interpret Jar as further believing that one doesn't have to believe in Christ or accept Christ as Lord and Savior in order to be saved from sin.I can't be sure I've understood Jar's beliefs correctly, I'm possibly as confused about them as anyone else.--Percy

I don't mean we have to believe them real to have a discussion, but we have to work within the framework of their existence. The poster to whom I responded was basically trivialising the discussion by saying believing in Christ is silly, so there. That's a position which is fine, but we can't discuss the character of Christ without first being of the position that he has a character. The reason why we need to start from the assumption that Christ is real to see if he is cruel (wheras we might not for your overseer) is because we are discussing what Christ is going to do regarding Schraf (a real person). If Christ is fictional, he is going to do nothing to Schraf the real person. I understand that - thus I was having difficulty how it was a valid objection to my premises that Christ exists, divinity, Holy Word etc. If we start off with 'Christ doesn't exist' then we would have to start everything off with "but if he did exist", unless we were merely discussing his character in the Books he stars in.So all I am saying is, to discuss the issue we say:
If Christ exists, and the Holy Bible contains the accurate account of who he was (divine) and what he did....
Then is he cruel for being responsible for the fate of Schraf?If we start off with
If Christ doesn't exist and the Holy Bible is a complete work of fiction
Then is Christ cruel for the Schraf predicament?Doesn't really work. Hence I think Jar and I were at cross purposes. He was arguing the conclusion, I was just saying that ridiculing the belief in Christ is irrelevant to a thread where we are discussing the kind of character he would be if he existed.

You really don't understand a thing that Jesus said or did. Everyone should repent mistakes. Jew, Christian, Atheist, we should regret doing wrong and try to do right. And believe His message, "Love GOD and love others as you love yourself". Belief is shown by your actions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Everyone, Jew, Christian, Believer, non-Believer, screws up regularly. I believe the Confession, found in BCP, covers it pretty well. Note the part "by what we have done, and by what we have left undone." These are what matter, the small things that happen every day, the person we didn't help or the rude comment we make. GOD even forgives the major screwups within reason. Just how high that limit is I don't know.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't reject that assumption.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion