Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
389 online now:
caffeine, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 385 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,542 Year: 1,290/23,288 Month: 1,290/1,851 Week: 414/320 Day: 23/91 Hour: 1/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who can be saved? A Christian perspective
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 271 of 466 (186756)
02-19-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by jar
02-19-2005 10:38 AM


Meaningless death? That depends.....
.....on how you look at it.

Brian: To me this suggests that Christ's death was meaningless.
I mean if the gift of eternal life with God is acheivable by just lovng other as you love yourself, then Jesus didn't need to die? His death was pointless if there is another way to get into heaven.

What better example of selfless love than by the the giving of one's life?

Christ did not recant His teachings on the threat & reality of torture and death - he endured the self-doubt, agony and mortal death.

John 13: 15 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his brothers

Would Christ's message have been as dramatic and absorbing or emphasised without this ultimate sacrifice?

I believe not.

Cheers


Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.
--Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 10:38 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 12:14 PM MiguelG has not yet responded
 Message 280 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 9:55 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 272 of 466 (186759)
02-19-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Brian
02-19-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Yes, amazingly enough
I understand your comments Brian. Given what some self-styled 'Christians' maintain I couldn't blame you one iota.

Can I just say that it doesn't matter?

If you apply selfless love in your life then you're living Christ's teachings - His and countless others before & after Him.

That's gotta be a good thing.

;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 11:42 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32024
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 273 of 466 (186763)
02-19-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by MiguelG
02-19-2005 11:43 AM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
I agree with what you said but that does not mean that GOD does not have other paths, other tactics for speaking to people.

Remember, Jesus death is only one moment in the story. For thirty-three years before that he taught and set an example. We tend to forget the part about Jesus life and teachings in the magnitude of the crucifixion.

There are also examples, IMHO, of GOD sending messages that did not entail death. One good example is Buddha, another Confucious. GOD speaks in the idiom and context of the day and the audience. The story and experiences of Jesus would resonate within the community of the day, with contemporary folk. But I do not believe that limits GOD to speaking in only that idiom.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by MiguelG, posted 02-19-2005 11:43 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 12:49 PM jar has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 274 of 466 (186770)
02-19-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by jar
02-19-2005 12:14 PM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
GOD speaks in the idiom and context of the day and the audience.

Buddhists call this Upalya Kausalya (skilful means), maybe Jesus was an incarnation of a Buddha!

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 12:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 4:17 PM Brian has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13567
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 275 of 466 (186789)
02-19-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Brian
02-19-2005 11:42 AM


I Like big Buts......
Brian writes:

I think that the God of the Bible is a gutless, horrendous, evil, barbarian, so I do not love God, even by proxy.


If you were a native who worshiped a volcano and had never heard of the Bible yet wanted to do what was noble and right for his village and his kids...we would call him an atheist rather than an idolator. We are thus suggesting that you can in fact love a God you have never known...be ye native or be ye theology professor! :)
Brian writes:

maybe Jesus was an incarnation of a Buddha!

Religiously and legalistically, people would say no way! I see what you mean, however. So...yes, definitely.

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-19-2005 12:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 11:42 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32024
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 276 of 466 (186807)
02-19-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Brian
02-19-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
Buddhists call this Upalya Kausalya (skilful means), maybe Jesus was an incarnation of a Buddha!

Possible. Or it could simply be, as I said, that GOD speaks in the idiom and context of the day and the audience. Whether, Jesus, Buddha, Mencius, Confucius or Mohamud, is it possible that GOD uses the tools available?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 12:49 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by MiguelG, posted 02-20-2005 2:07 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 278 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 7:32 AM jar has not yet responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 277 of 466 (186886)
02-20-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
02-19-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
Hey Jar, I liked what you said:

GOD speaks in the idiom and context of the day and the audience

You've put into a succinct sentence an idea I've been trying to get across to creationists for a very long time.

Cheers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 4:17 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 7:37 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 278 of 466 (186899)
02-20-2005 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
02-19-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
Yep, I just found it interesting that Buddhists have a specific term for this.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 02-19-2005 4:17 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 279 of 466 (186900)
02-20-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by MiguelG
02-20-2005 2:07 AM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
We also have to consider the possibility that a Buddha is using the concept of God to speak in the idiom and context of the day and the audience.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by MiguelG, posted 02-20-2005 2:07 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 280 of 466 (186914)
02-20-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by MiguelG
02-19-2005 11:43 AM


Re: Meaningless death? That depends.....
Hi,

What better example of selfless love than by the the giving of one's life?

It was hardly a big deal for Jesus though was it! The dude knew that he was immortal and couldn't die (which is a bit of a problem for him 'dying' on a cross), he knew that he would be resurrected three days later. Jesus' death is no big deal, givng someone your last cigarette is a bigger sacrifice.

Christ did not recant His teachings on the threat & reality of torture and death - he endured the self-doubt, agony and mortal death.

Well, we only have the word of legends to say Jesus did this, we have no eye-witnes accounts at all, no primary sources, no external sources, no real evidence at all.

It is very easy to say someone went through all this, but did he really experience it? I think not.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by MiguelG, posted 02-19-2005 11:43 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4633 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 281 of 466 (186916)
02-20-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Brian
02-19-2005 8:42 AM


Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Dear Brain;

Can you explain how a day old baby born in Sodom could be considered wicked?

Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom. Do you have any evidence that there were any such who were killed? Considering the moral atmosphere in sodom and Gomorrah, any one with a family may have left the area long before the destruction occurred. When Jehovah told Abraham of the coming destruction, Abraham voiced concern over the possibility of any righteous persons being killed along with the wicked, Jehovah stated. (Genesis 18:26-32) "Then Jehovah said: "If I shall find in Sod´om fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.' . . . In turn he said: "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten." If there would have been just ten righteous people, the place would not have been destroyed. In fact the only righteous person in the area was Lot whom the angels had to drag out of town by his hand. (Genesis 19:15-16) "then the angels became urgent with Lot, . . . When he kept lingering, then in the compassion of Jehovah upon him, the men seized hold of his hand and of the hand of his wife and of the hands of his two daughters and they proceeded to bring him out" Once Lot and his family were out of town, there were no righteous people left in the area and it was destroyed.

So there was no one righteous was killed by God, if there were any children there, they were counted as wicked by the God who can read hearts and knows the future. God can see what the child will grow up to be. (Genesis 25:23) "Jehovah proceeded to say to her: "Two nations are in your belly, and two national groups will be separated from your inward parts; and the one national group will be stronger than the other national group, and the older will serve the younger."

Sincerley Yours; Wm Scott Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 8:42 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 10:24 AM wmscott has responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4633 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 282 of 466 (186917)
02-20-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by MiguelG
02-19-2005 11:18 AM


Jesus will tread the 'winepress of the anger of God'
Dear MiguelG;

Explain please, how such laws as discussed here are in accordance with a teaching of love?
[Wmscott: (your rape 'victim' was not a victim, but a willing participant…] -Because she was raped in the city?

Here read it for yourself. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city," If she didn't scream, which was a legal requirement to establish her innocency, she was a willing participant.
[Wmscott: …and the disobedient child was not a young child, but someone old enough to be a drunkard.] -Old enough?So a 13 year old could be stoned? Maybe a 12 year old? Should we just stone all drunkards?
I believe under Jewish tradition, children came under the law at age 12, so the minimum age would be 12. The actual age would probably be higher if you read the legal requirements. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) "In case a man happens to have a son who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his father and his mother must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die." The description is of a hardened Juvenal delinquent, while it is possible for some to perhaps reach this state by the age of 12, is sounds more like a teenager or older to me. Anyone who fits this description is worthy of the punishment.
[Wmscott: No innocents died in the flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah.] -Perhaps you could explain then how a baby, toddler or young child might be 'ungodly' or not innocent?

Do you have any evidence that there were any such who were killed? Considering the moral atmosphere in sodom and Gomorrah, any one with a family may have left the area long before the destruction occurred. When Jehovah told Abraham of the coming destruction, Abraham voiced concern over the possibility of any righteous persons being killed along with the wicked, Jehovah stated. (Genesis 18:26-32) "Then Jehovah said: "If I shall find in Sod´om fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.' . . . In turn he said: "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten." If there would have been just ten righteous people, the place would not have been destroyed. In fact the only righteous person in the area was Lot whom the angels had to drag out of town by his hand. (Genesis 19:15-16) "then the angels became urgent with Lot, . . . When he kept lingering, then in the compassion of Jehovah upon him, the men seized hold of his hand and of the hand of his wife and of the hands of his two daughters and they proceeded to bring him out" Once Lot and his family were out of town, there were no righteous people left in the area and it was destroyed.

So there was no one righteous was killed by God, if there were any children there, they were counted as wicked by the God who can read hearts and knows the future. God can see what the child will grow up to be. (Genesis 25:23) "Jehovah proceeded to say to her: "Two nations are in your belly, and two national groups will be separated from your inward parts; and the one national group will be stronger than the other national group, and the older will serve the younger."

Discipline is a word that covers a multitude of sins. How much punishment would you say is fair for a disobedient child? Suffice it to say that I would not stone, incinerate or in any way greviously harm, mutilate or slay my own offspring – or indeed any child.

You have been making the mistake of applying human laws to God, we are not to kill, because Jehovah is the one who will destroy the wicked, not us. (Hebrews 10:30-31) "For we know him that said: "Vengeance is mine; I will recompense"; and again: "Jehovah will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God." God can read hearts and knows the future, he will kill the wicked, young or old, but he will kill only the wicked. The righteous, young or old, he saves. I trust Jehovah to alway to what is right. Do you?
And you believe that the Bible sanctions humans to 'chastise' the wicked?

What verse or verses are you referring to?
The picture you paint of Christ is your own and not supported by the words and deeds of Christ Himself.

Jesus Christ will 'tread' the 'winepress' of the wrath of god. (Revelation 19:15-16) "He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

Now what is the "winepress of the anger of God"? It is described here. (Revelation 14:18-20) "Put your sharp sickle in and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, because its grapes have become ripe." And the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and he hurled it into the great winepress of the anger of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses, for a distance of a thousand six hundred furlongs."

So here Jesus Christ treads the grapes of the vine of the earth, and the blood of the grapes comes out of the press as high as the bridles of the horses. What is the 'vine of the earth' and what are the grapes? The vine is world of mankind opposed to God, and the grapes are people and the ripeness is their wickedness. (Joel 3:12-13) "Let the nations be aroused and come up to the low plain of Je·hosh´a·phat; for there I shall sit in order to judge all the nations round about. "THRUST in a sickle, for harvest has grown ripe. Come, descend, for [the] winepress has become full. The press vats actually overflow; for their badness has become abundant."

So when God has the wicked destroyed, Jesus Christ will be treading the wine press, crusting the wicked beneath his feed. The winepress is symbolic, it illustrates the completeness of the destruction of the wicked, of which Jesus will have the lead in destroying.

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by MiguelG, posted 02-19-2005 11:18 AM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 283 of 466 (186928)
02-20-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by wmscott
02-20-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Hi W thanks for the reply,

Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.

It was a hypothetical question, I was assuming that there would be babies in a city, which is a reasonable assumption.

Do you have any evidence that there were any such who were killed?

How can I have evidence when we do not even know if Sodom or Gomorrah existed at all, there is no evidence to suport these cities ever existing, the whole tale is hypothetical.

Considering the moral atmosphere in sodom and Gomorrah, any one with a family may have left the area long before the destruction occurred.

Which is your guess of course. It may not have been that easy for a family to just get up and leave a city.

But, the only person in Sodom who was warned about its destruction was Lot, and we know what a disgusting pervert he was, is this God's idea of a righteous man?

So there was no one righteous was killed by God, if there were any children there, they were counted as wicked by the God who can read hearts and knows the future.

But no one is righteous according to the Bible, so a day old baby would be considered wicked, and probably still is by some Christians.

This is also a problem as to why God allowed Lot to survive. Surely this incestuous drunk would be counted as wicked and punished for his future deeds? If it is good enough for a baby to die before it commits wicked acts then it should be good enough for Lot.

Cheers.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by wmscott, posted 02-20-2005 10:02 AM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2005 8:31 AM Brian has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 466 (186943)
02-20-2005 11:31 AM


Last Call.
If anyone has anything else to add related to "Who can be saved? A Christian perspective" please do so now. It's time for last call and no roadies will be issued.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4633 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 285 of 466 (187157)
02-21-2005 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Brian
02-20-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Dear Brain;

It was a hypothetical question, I was assuming that there would be babies in a city, which is a reasonable assumption.

Yes certainly a reasonable assumption for a normal city, which Sodom was not. (Genesis 18:20) "Jehovah said: "The cry of complaint about Sod´om and Go·mor´rah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy." Considering the 'loud' 'cry of complaint about Sodom', and the lack of righteous people found there, any decent family types had apparently left the area. (Genesis 19:4-5) "the men of Sod´om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Of the remaining men left in the city, they were all homosexual. This was not a place to raise children. Which is why I say that there were probably few, if any children, there at the time.

How can I have evidence when we do not even know if Sodom or Gomorrah existed at all, there is no evidence to suport these cities ever existing, the whole tale is hypothetical.

See the book "The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho; Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background" David Neev, K.O. Emery, Oxford University Press, 1995.

Now if you believe the tale hypothetical, a moral story, why do you insist on God killing the innocents? The evidence from our most detailed account, the Bible, states that there were no innocents destroyed. The wickedness that you keep seeing is in your own mind. You want to see God as wicked, so you can claim a reason for not believing in him. (Ezekiel 33:17) "people have said, 'The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right,' but, as for them, it is their way that is not adjusted right."

But no one is righteous according to the Bible, so a day old baby would be considered wicked, and probably still is by some Christians.
This is also a problem as to why God allowed Lot to survive. Surely this incestuous drunk would be counted as wicked and punished for his future deeds? If it is good enough for a baby to die before it commits wicked acts then it should be good enough for Lot.

Easy on the hatred Brain, so you really hate Christians. I can't blame you for hating the hypocritical ones, but you seem to hate all and God as well. Your hatred is blinding your mind to reasonable thought. Hatred such as yours is the seeds from which prejudice and intolerance grown, if allowed to grown in your heart and mind long enough, you will one day do terrible things. The thoughts of today, tend to be the actions of tomorrow. Is that the kind of person you wish to become? I would suggest you sit down and think things over, and try to get at least get a less intolerant view of things. People do reap what they sow, what people do, does tend to come back to them in time. So don't let yourself be consumed and twisted by the flames of hate.

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message has been edited by wmscott, 02-21-2005 08:35 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 10:24 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Chiroptera, posted 02-21-2005 1:54 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 287 by berberry, posted 02-21-2005 2:46 PM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 2:53 PM wmscott has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020