wu :: forums (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
general >> truth >> Jesus
(Message started by: username101 on Aug 26th, 2007, 1:42am)

Title: Jesus
Post by username101 on Aug 26th, 2007, 1:42am
If jesus died for all are sins because we are sinners pretty much when we are born wouldnt he a be a sinner and wouldnt that also mean that all people get into heaven now like murders, petifilers, ect..

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 26th, 2007, 1:56am

on 08/26/07 at 01:42:11, username101 wrote:
If jesus died for all are sins because we are sinners pretty much when we are born wouldnt he a be a sinner and wouldnt that also mean that all people get into heaven now like murders, petifilers, ect..


Pardon?

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by username101 on Aug 26th, 2007, 2:03am
lol

if jesus died for our sins so we could all go to even doesnt that mean that murders, petifilers and all the people that should burn for a eternity in hell can go to heaven 2

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 26th, 2007, 2:11am
Well, according to you he died for our sins, if we don't commit them, then he's just dying in vain now isn't he?

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by rmsgrey on Aug 26th, 2007, 9:04am

on 08/26/07 at 01:42:11, username101 wrote:
If jesus died for all are sins because we are sinners pretty much when we are born wouldnt he a be a sinner and wouldnt that also mean that all people get into heaven now like murders, petifilers, ect..


1) He got a pass on the original sin so he wasn't a sinner after all.

2) It means that anyone can get into heaven, even murderers, paedophiles, and abusive hypnodommes (don't ask) but only if we accept his offer. If we got what we truly deserved, everyone would go to hell - complaining about the idea of "really nasty people" being let into heaven is like meeting someone handing out $100 bills on the street and complaining that he's offered one to the homeless guy on the corner as well as to you...

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 26th, 2007, 2:30pm

Quote:
being let into heaven is like meeting someone handing out $100 bills on the street and complaining that he's offered one to the homeless guy on the corner as well as to you...


I'd complain, why did he only give me one?  :P

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Aug 26th, 2007, 2:52pm

on 08/26/07 at 09:04:14, rmsgrey wrote:
complaining about the idea of "really nasty people" being let into heaven is like meeting someone handing out $100 bills on the street and complaining that he's offered one to the homeless guy on the corner as well as to you...
Perhaps if that someone was also asking everyone to get in a line to receive their $100 bill, and then everyone that disregards directions completely gets their money before you.

You get nothing for following the rules. Yay!
Rampage now, ask forgiveness later.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 26th, 2007, 8:00pm
Good call.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by SMQ on Aug 27th, 2007, 6:34am

on 08/26/07 at 14:52:32, towr wrote:
Rampage now, ask forgiveness later.

Two points: first, while I hesitate to even speculate on whom God1 will or will not choose to extend His offer of salvation to, it seems likely to me that forgiveness will only be given to those whose contrition is sincere.2  If one consciously chooses to rampage now with the intention of asking forgiveness later, won't it be that much harder -- and more unlikely -- to be honestly sorry for the damage caused?

Second, while God claims many attributes for Himself in the Bible, nowhere does He claim to be "fair."  "Just," yes, but not "fair."  In fact, His recorded actions/decisions -- see, for example, pretty much the entire book of Job -- are at times distinctly unfair by any reasonable definition.

1Disclaimer: I'm a Christian and write from that perspective. Insert "assuming God exists and the Christian interpretation of the Bible is essentially correct" as appropriate.
2Further disclaimer: I'm writing only for myself here and make no claim that my views represent any particular doctrinal orthodoxy, etc.

--SMQ

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Sameer on Aug 27th, 2007, 7:09pm
Frankly I believe it's just an instrument of control concocted by few people during the restless ages continued to the present era..  I thought I would stay out of this conversation.. It always kind of annoys me that someone comes up to me (they did a lot during my college time) and claim that I am a sinner and that if I became Christian I would go to heaven. Come on, he was implying that even though however good I am in my life I would be a "sinner" if i wasn't embracing Christianity. I always politely told him to leave or say I don't believe in "heaven" or such, I still think this is very intrusive.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in following any particular religion and don't claim to be part of any. I take good from everything and try to make it my life's doctrine.. like do good things to others, don't encroach on other's freedom, etc. etc..

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by username101 on Aug 29th, 2007, 12:41am
religion was made to control people through fear because if we have nothing to fear then we would do wat ever the hell we want whenever we want so people created religion to control these urgers because without fear we truly live

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 29th, 2007, 12:53am
Christianity is a rip-off of Judaism. I don't see how people can claim that a 'Messiah' was ressurected or is the son of God. According to Judaism, there are certain protocols to be a 'Messiah', and frankly Jesus didn't cut it.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Aug 29th, 2007, 2:47am
And what exactly are those protocols of a Messiah, mike ? In what way does Jesus the son of Mary did not fulfill them ?

I'm a Muslim, and I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, translated Christ, translated the Annoited One. And I don't claim that belief only for myself; All Muslims believe that, on the authority of Muhammad.

However, going back to what username101 wrote :  

Quote:
if jesus died for our sins so we could all go to even doesnt that mean that murders, petifilers and all the people that should burn for a eternity in hell can go to heaven 2


Before commenting on that particular dogma, maybe the learned christians among the forum members could explain from where this idea came from.  ( I expect it to be from the Bible, but maybe a specific verse of a certain chapter could give us a basis of what we are discussing about )





Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 29th, 2007, 3:02am
Well, there are certain requirements as I said. I have been educated only briefly on the topic. OK here goes. Don't hold me to this, but from what I recalled...

1: Had to be a warrior
2: Had to be a 'Holy Man'
3: Had to build a temple... something along those lines
4: Be alive...so not die like Jesus did.
5: Bring peace to the world
6: Help the Jewish Nation
7: Destroy the evil doers of the world

OK, so of the following criteria, which had to all be covered, to be considered the 'Messiah', Jesus did not complete them all, and there are more to the list as well might I mention. So hence Jesus was not the 'Messiah'.

I wish I had some evidence to back this up, but it is out there.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Aug 29th, 2007, 3:34am
My apologies to the Christians, if the reference(s) are off :

1: Had to be a warrior - Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

2: Had to be a 'Holy Man' - Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"

3: Had to build a temple... something along those lines - didn't know about this.

4: Be alive...so not die like Jesus did. - So you're saying the Messiah would live forever ?

5: Bring peace to the world - Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." <It seems you're right on this point>


6: Help the Jewish Nation - Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I was sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, "


7: Destroy the evil doers of the world - I'll leave one for the Christians to answer.

Like I said, I have no qualms in accepting Jesus as the Messiah, in fact, one of the mightiest messenger of God. It's part of our ( Muslim's ) belief.

However, to believe him to be the only begotten son of God, begotten not made, reincarnated to the world, to identify with pain and sufferings of mankind, and to die on the cross to absolve mankind from their sins ( if they accept salvation through him ), well, that's, umm, highly debatable.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 29th, 2007, 3:39am
Ahh, proof, well partial. Well, I am not sure whether living for eternity is specified, but to be the 'Messiah' your not exactly ressurected. For all we know, there may be multiple 'Messiahs'. But when they do arrive, there will be a universal utopia.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Three Hands on Aug 29th, 2007, 8:59am
Certainly a lot of Matthew's Gospel was written with the express view of pointing out the ways in which Jesus fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Messiah, as were the others to a lesser extent. However, one of the main points was that he was fulfilling the requirements in a somewhat unexpected fashion, hence why not all the Jews (especially most of the Jewish authorities) recognised the signs.

I suspect that a lot of it comes down to interpretation, though. It's been a while since I did any theological study, so my knowledge is a bit rusty, but I believe the evidence is pointed to within the Gospels to show that Jesus possibly fulfilled the requirements of the Messiah, depending on how you interpret the Old Testament prophecies.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by ThudanBlunder on Aug 29th, 2007, 9:44am
I thought the attached file might be of interest to some.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Grimbal on Aug 30th, 2007, 6:32am
It doesn't matter because faith is not a question of logic.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by ThudanBlunder on Aug 30th, 2007, 7:05am

on 08/30/07 at 06:32:48, Grimbal wrote:
It doesn't matter because faith is not a question of logic.

Yet it is possible to be both faithful and logical.
Depends on what one chooses to believe in.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by SMQ on Aug 30th, 2007, 7:15am

on 08/30/07 at 06:32:48, Grimbal wrote:
It doesn't matter because faith is not a question of logic.

Well, yes and no.  Faith in the absence of evidence is one thing; faith in the face of refuting evidence quite another.  It would seem to me that the above compilation should, at the least, rightly cause some questions among Biblical literalists.  You're right that, unfortunately, it probably won't, but in my view that's more a matter of tradition and/or inflexibility than of faith.

For myself, I try to structure my own Christian faith such that it is both internally consistent and that there exists a reasonable interpretation of my beliefs which is not contradicted by other reliable evidence.  I don't always succeed, and I've had to change my belief in the face of new evidence more than once, but the goal remains.

Faith and Reason need not be incompatible, they're just too-rarely mixed. :)

--SMQ

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 30th, 2007, 3:22pm
Well, I am an atheist. :)
So for me there are no problems accepting this as true or false, but logically it's false to me.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 2nd, 2007, 6:31pm
So, do you reason your faith, or do you structure your faith to reason, SMQ ?  ;D

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Azgard on Apr 1st, 2008, 9:11pm

on 08/26/07 at 09:04:14, rmsgrey wrote:
2) It means that anyone can get into heaven, even murderers, paedophiles, and abusive hypnodommes (don't ask) but only if we accept his offer. If we got what we truly deserved, everyone would go to hell - complaining about the idea of "really nasty people" being let into heaven is like meeting someone handing out $100 bills on the street and complaining that he's offered one to the homeless guy on the corner as well as to you...



It's a persuasion tactic. If you want someone to change their way of thinking or their behaviour, one of the things you can use (rather effectively) is a fear appeal. A fear appeal has 2 components (taken directly from the Psychology of Persuasion lecture notes):

1. Threat Information
   -they use threats, if you do this, then this is what  will happen to you!
   -not no levels of threat, very specific and scary
   -Severity
   -Susceptibility -have to address the issue of “oh, it can't happen to me”
           -have to make people realize that it can happen to them
           -have to use issues that hit home
   -you need to make it worth their while, and they have to believe that

2. Efficacy information -knowing that actions can be taken
   -response efficacy
       -if you engage in the prescribed behaviour, you can avoid the risk
       -it won't happen to you if you do this
  -self-efficacy of the person
       -can I actually do this? Is this something that I, personally, can pull off?
       -if people do not feel they can do the new behaviour, they will not try
-as persuaders, we need to pump people up to believe that they can do it!

So, putting this into context, and pardoning any and all errors I make (I do not follow a religion, and did not grow up with one, so I apologize)

if you continue living your life the way you are, you go to hell. Hell is scary, full of fire and brimstone, eternal damnation, etc... You sin, and therefor it will happen to you! But, if you accept this offer, get into the whole Christianity gig, you will be saved! Not only can you do this, you must do this, for the good of your soul!


Just my little insight. I recognized the tactic from one of my courses.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:01am

on 04/04/08 at 01:13:51, Iceman wrote:
...


You are joking, eh Icey ? Because to read someone who has an opinion such as yours, ( whatever religion he/she might embrace ) is disheartening, to say the least. I guess that's due to the fact that I'm a strong believer of religions, i.e. I believe everyone should believe in a system of faith. We might argue over the points on what we actually believe in, but to ridicule our own faith is, like I said, disheartening. Why would you mock something you believe in ? And if you don't believe it, why do you mock it in the first place ?  :-/


Quote:
Well, yes and no.  Faith in the absence of evidence is one thing; faith in the face of refuting evidence quite another.


An interesting point, towr SMQ. When you are faced with evidence which seems  to contradict your faith, do you reject the evidence, or do you reject your faith ? If you reject your faith, did you ever had faith in it in the first place ?


Title: Re: Jesus
Post by SMQ on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:57am

on 04/07/08 at 04:01:09, JiNbOtAk wrote:
An interesting point, towr. When you are faced with evidence which seems  to contradict your faith, do you reject the evidence, or do you reject your faith ? If you reject your faith, did you ever had faith in it in the first place ?

Actually, that was me, not towr, that you quoted.

For myself, I'd say that there is very little which is truly foundational to my faith -- the Apostles' Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed) roughly covers what I'd claim as essential -- and everything else is open to "tweaking" to better fit with my best understanding of the nature of reality.  But it's not really an either-or thing; the two, my understanding of my faith and my understanding of the world around me, generally grow and change together, and I've found that most seemingly-contradictory evidence, upon reflection, examination and discussion, usually serves to enlighten my understanding of both.  It's through the process of trying to form a cohesive and uncontradictory whole (gestalt) from the separate bits of experience/evidence that, as the cliche goes, I grow as a person.  I try not to reject anything outright if I can help it.

--SMQ

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Apr 7th, 2008, 9:58am

on 04/07/08 at 04:01:09, JiNbOtAk wrote:
I guess that's due to the fact that I'm a strong believer of religions, i.e. I believe everyone should believe in a system of faith.
Really? So should I take that to mean you disapprove of atheists and agnostics?


Quote:
We might argue over the points on what we actually believe in, but to ridicule our own faith is, like I said, disheartening. Why would you mock something you believe in ?
Mocking your own opinions and beliefs is good for the soul. It builds character. One might argue that any opinion or belief that can't stand up to it wasn't worth having in the first place.
It's like how you can make fun of your friends, but shouldn't make fun of strangers. If you can't mock your friends occasionally, then it betrays a very shaky basis for that friendship. If you can't make fun of your beliefs, then they also rest on a very shaky basis.


Quote:
When you are faced with evidence which seems to contradict your faith, do you reject the evidence, or do you reject your faith ? If you reject your faith, did you ever had faith in it in the first place ?
I would say the most likely scenario is adaptation. The core of one's faith can typically stand the battery of evidence; the impact can be mediated by auxiliary articles of faith.
Perhaps the world isn't really a flat square; perhaps the creation myth isn't really meant to be taken literally; things like that. Faith can adapt.

(This is very much the same way that science actually works. The falsification model of science, while it might be something to strive at, is not how scientists typically behave in reality. Scientists strive to conserve the core of their scientific paradigm by changing auxiliary laws and hypothesis. Paradigm shifts occur when there's no saving the old core, or if the younger generation of scientists prefer new paradigm and the old generation simply dies out like the dinosaurs they are ;) )

Of course you might still ask, "but did you really have faith then, if you don't hold on to the integral whole?". But any adaptation is likely to be projected backwards. You're likely to suppose you always had your current opinions in some form and wouldn't recognize a lot of the opinions of the you 10 years ago.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by SMQ on Apr 7th, 2008, 10:53am

on 04/07/08 at 09:58:15, towr wrote:
Mocking your own opinions and beliefs is good for the soul.

Absolutely.  Every once in a while I have to remind myself that I actually believe that 2000-odd years ago some Jewish girl got herself knocked up by the big man in the sky (can you imagine being Joseph: "Hey Joe, your fiancee is pregnant, but don't worry, she's still a virgin; it's God's baby!"), that she gave birth (in a barn) to a guy who pissed off so many people by being a goody-two-shoes that they crucified him just to shut him up, that he not only refused to stay dead but went on to fly off into the sky never to be seen again (but he promised he'd come back "any day now!"), and that this all somehow pays some sort of cosmic price for my being a dickhead so that the big man in the sky will decide I'm worth having around and won't let me stay dead either.
Reduced to its essentials, it's really quite ridiculous. :D

(But at least I don't believe I'm an impossibly old non-material space alien who's been wandering around purposeless since being flown to Earth in a DC-8 and blown up in a volcano some 75 million years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera_in_Scientology_scripture))
;)

--SMQ

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 7th, 2008, 11:26pm

on 04/07/08 at 04:57:32, SMQ wrote:
Actually, that was me, not towr, that you quoted.


Err, sorry. Blame it on the green stars.  :P



on 04/07/08 at 09:58:15, towr wrote:
Really? So should I take that to mean you disapprove of atheists and agnostics?


Of course. I disapprove of atheists and agnostics with regard to their belief system, not they themselves as humans. ( Just for the record, I have quite a few friends, some of them close friends, who are atheists ) I guess its not that much different than the atheist who disapprove of people who accepts their faith as a way of life ?


on 04/07/08 at 09:58:15, towr wrote:
Mocking your own opinions and beliefs is good for the soul. It builds character. One might argue that any opinion or belief that can't stand up to it wasn't worth having in the first place.
It's like how you can make fun of your friends, but shouldn't make fun of strangers. If you can't mock your friends occasionally, then it betrays a very shaky basis for that friendship. If you can't make fun of your beliefs, then they also rest on a very shaky basis.


I still believe that you should draw a line somewhere. Making fun of friends is ok, but would it still be ok to make fun of your parents ? ( Not joke with them, but make them the butt of our joke ) If we don't do it to our parents ( I'm assuming you agree with me on this ), then why should we choose to do so when it comes to God ? Although, in retrospect, I might be the only one who think so..  :-/


Quote:
You're likely to suppose you always had your current opinions in some form and wouldn't recognize a lot of the opinions of the you 10 years ago.


I agree.


Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Apr 8th, 2008, 12:37am

on 04/07/08 at 23:26:51, JiNbOtAk wrote:
I still believe that you should draw a line somewhere. Making fun of friends is ok, but would it still be ok to make fun of your parents ? ( Not joke with them, but make them the butt of our joke )
I'd say yes; but then it's a very 'in' thing here for parents to try and be friends with their children. So there is a slight blurring between the two concepts from my perspective.
If a line is to be drawn somewhere, I would say it's not so much the subject of mockery, but the extent of the mockery (given a subject). I suppose that's a bit what you say with "you can joke with them, but not make them the butt of a joke"; although myself, I would probably be less conservative in placing that line. Outright humiliation should be excluded; but that's also the case with most friends, it takes a very specific kind of friend you can post dancing drunken and naked with a lampshade on his head on youtube without risking your friendship (and you'd undoubtedly have to be able to take as good as you give).


Quote:
If we don't do it to our parents ( I'm assuming you agree with me on this ), then why should we choose to do so when it comes to God ? Although, in retrospect, I might be the only one who think so..  :-/
Well, I can see where you're coming from; if you can't mock your parents then you can't really mock God, as 'super-parent', either. It's interesting to consider whether to look at God as more of a friend or a parent; and what kind.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Sir Col on Apr 11th, 2008, 11:48am

on 08/26/07 at 02:03:57, username101 wrote:
if jesus died for our sins so we could all go to even doesnt that mean that murders, petifilers and all the people that should burn for a eternity in hell can go to heaven 2



on 08/29/07 at 02:47:31, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Before commenting on that particular dogma, maybe the learned christians among the forum members could explain from where this idea came from.  ( I expect it to be from the Bible, but maybe a specific verse of a certain chapter could give us a basis of what we are discussing about )

Inviting someone to answer this is almost like saying, "Would all the 'know-it-alls' amongst you please put your hands up."

*raises hand*

Please understand that I am only skimming the surface of some very, very complex ideas in Christian (reformed) theology...

Of course, if Jesus died for our sins so we could ALL go to heaven then we would ALL go to Heaven. It's a syllogism and is like saying, if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then does that mean that Socrates will one day die?

Sadly the original question is built on a false premise (from a Christian's perspective). Not everyone will go to Heaven, and that includes some of those that think they're going to Heaven. Jesus said:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Matthew 7:21-23


We believe that God is infinite and holy. Part of His holiness encompasses His justice. God will reward and punish according to our thoughts, words, and deeds. Therefore any offence against an infinite and holy God must carry an eternal punishment. Hence every human deserves to be sent to hell.

To argue that you haven't sinned against God because you don't even believe in Him doesn't cut. In fact, denying His existence is to commit cosmic treason.

You might have heard people referring to Jesus as Saviour. So what did He save us from? Orthodox Christianity teaches that He came to save us from the wrath of God's punishment, a punishment that we fully deserve. This is called the "Good News": Jesus offered Himself in our place (as an atonement) and God's wrath was unleashed on Jesus during the passion. But more importantly, the righteousness of Christ (the reward of His perfect life) is imputed to us so that we can enjoy the rewards and benefits of eternal life in Heaven. However, reformed Christianity teaches that the atonement is limited and only covers those who God chooses to save.

But SMQ made a very important point: we believe that God is just, so no one will end up in hell by mistake. The greatest miracle is that anyone escapes it. But who and how God chooses is perhaps one of the most perplexing mysteries we Christians face.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 29:29


I believe the object of God's wrath (sending people to hell for their sins) and His grace (rescuing people for Heaven despite their sins) is one of those secret things of God. Anyone who thinks they can play the game of deciding who is or who isn't going to hell is stepping on very dangerous grounds.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Apr 11th, 2008, 1:07pm

on 04/11/08 at 11:48:02, Sir Col wrote:
We believe that God is infinite and holy. Part of His holiness encompasses His justice. God will reward and punish according to our thoughts, words, and deeds. Therefore any offence against an infinite and holy God must carry an eternal punishment. Hence every human deserves to be sent to hell.
I find that impossible to believe. And I suppose I've said it before, and you'll probably disagree (possibly again). But, eternal punishment just doesn't make sense; at the very least there must be a chance for redemption. God is merciful; if there is no redemption possible, why not just end the existence of the person, rather than inflict pointless suffering and tarnish His divine self?
And aside from that, what can someone's sin really mean to the Infinite? Something so small to something so Large. The all-powerfull needn't assert Himself through force; fear is a tool for the weak.


Quote:
To argue that you haven't sinned against God because you don't even believe in Him doesn't cut. In fact, denying His existence is to commit cosmic treason.
There are rather too many different religions to blame people for not knowing which, if any, is the True One. It's nigh impossible not to sin against at least one of them; short of dying before birth.
Justice needs to allow for extenuating circumstances.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Sir Col on Apr 11th, 2008, 2:03pm
This is not going to answer your question but it might help to explain the root of the difficulties we have in these types of discussions...

Christians that subscribe to reformed theology believe that the extent of sin in this world is so great that although we are capable of civic virtue (doing what appears to be good outwardly) our sinful nature does not allow our real motives to be to the glory of God. Moreover, no one will choose God without God intervening.

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Romans 3:10-12


Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a). We believe that unless God's Holy Spirit works in us and changes our hearts we will never choose God. However, Paul writes, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In other words, I don't believe because of anything I've done or anything that is intrinsically good in me. Rather it is by the grace of God that when I read these same words you've been reading that I hear them differently. Take the following passage as an example...

"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night."

Psalm 1:1-2


This does not mean that a reward will be given to someone who does these things, rather the sign that he has already received his blessing is that he does these things. That is, someone who God has called chosen and whose heart has been transformed by His Holy Spirit will delight in the laws of God, whereas before God changes us we will despise God and His laws. In other words, we do not obey God out of an unholy fear of consequence, rather an intrinsic love for Him and what He has done for us.

As I said in my last post this is one of the most perplexing mysteries of our faith: why some are regenerated and others are not. However, we always come back to the fundamental principle that although we don't understand God's ways He is perfect and just. This means that whoever He calls to be chosen and does not chose can only be done according to His perfect knowledge and wisdom; He doesn't make mistakes.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 12th, 2008, 4:24am
In The Last Battle, the final Narnia book, C S Lewis offers his ideas on some of the questions of salvation and judgement. Two ideas stick in my mind:

1) The "good Calormene" - a man who spent his life worshipping Tash (the devil figure) rather than Aslan, and doing good deeds in the name of Tash, to find at the end that, while he was doing good deeds and calling on Tash's name, Aslan claimed them, just as Tash claimed the evil deeds people did while calling on Aslan's name. In other words, the name you use doesn't matter - it's what you do in that name that counts.

2) The final judgement, where Aslan stands beside a great gate, and all the creatures of the world come streaming towards him. As each approaches, they look upon the face of the Lion and some are ashamed, cannot bear to face him, and turn aside into the great darkness and devastation, while others, with joyful recognition, approach and enter the gateway. In other words, in C S Lewis's version, it's not God that decides to save or damn, but the individual who can or cannot face the truth about themselves and chooses to accept the price of salvation or not.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Mickey1 on Feb 17th, 2011, 6:00am
A few mysteries about Jesus - perhaps more appropriate under the "Truth" heading than you religious speculations.

Jesus Barrabas was released by Pontus Pilatus. His name can be read: Jesus "son of the father".

The gospel believed to be oldest (Mark) says:
"A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising."

Older texts use the defintie form, as if we knew about the insurrection. But the only one that occurred was the one in which Jesus was involved.
Barabbas was part of the resurrection (or perhaps a parallel description of Jesus)

Wikipedia: John 18:40 refers to Barabbas as a leistes ("bandit"), "the word Josephus always employs when talking about Revolutionaries", Robert Eisenman observes.

However, in the writings of Josefus who covers this period there was no uprising mentioned at all in the period, not until a decade or more later (e.g. the first Jewish Revolt of 66 - 73).

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 17th, 2011, 8:23am

on 04/12/08 at 04:24:21, rmsgrey wrote:
... but the individual who can or cannot face the truth about themselves and chooses to accept the price of salvation or not.

Hmmm.....the ones who cannot probably gave others less choice than they themselves are getting at this moment in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, etc.  ::)

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Mar 17th, 2011, 12:08am
On the contrary, for a person to be a successful tyrant (is there an unsuccessful one ??), he'd have to have a great personal belief in himself. His sense of personal grandeur might be considered false by everyone else, but not to him.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by wade32 on Apr 16th, 2012, 7:40am

on 08/29/07 at 00:41:36, username101 wrote:
religion was made to control people through fear because if we have nothing to fear then we would do wat ever the hell we want whenever we want so people created religion to control these urgers because without fear we truly live

Religion is not salvation.  Religion is a doctrinal approach twisted by man. If you were Catholoic per say, which is a Religional doctrine, and were told that everyone who was not catholic were going to Hell, then that is doctrinal falsehood.  The Bible says "whosoever will, let him come"  It didn't say only those people that are Catholic.  

*No harshness intended

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Apr 16th, 2012, 8:41am

on 04/16/12 at 07:40:54, wade32 wrote:
The Bible says "whosoever will, let him come"  It didn't say only those people that are Catholic.
It also doesn't exclude the possibility there may only be one way to come to him either.
Tough luck for however picks the wrong way, I guess.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by alien2 on Apr 16th, 2012, 12:46pm
Was Jesus of Nazareth an extraterrestrial? (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0307/tremble.html)

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 17th, 2012, 1:17pm

on 04/16/12 at 08:41:41, towr wrote:
It also doesn't exclude the possibility there may only be one way to come to him either.
Tough luck for however picks the wrong way, I guess.

There are two possible sides to "No-one comes to the Father save through me": on the one hand, there's the exclusive interpretation - that there's only One True Way; on the other that, while there are many Ways, Christ is on all of them

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by littlemisschic on Jul 26th, 2012, 8:34pm
If you wish to get biblical. Here's a Brain Twister!

In the bible it clearly states Adam and Eve where the first and only two people created on earth.

It also states they only had two children both of which were boys.

Does than mean in order for the rest of humanity to exist eve had sex with her own sons?

If so are we all not a product of Direct Incest?

Thank god science came along and blew creationism apart or we would all be warped by now!

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Jul 26th, 2012, 9:54pm

on 07/26/12 at 20:34:32, littlemisschic wrote:
It also states they only had two children both of which were boys.
Clearly you didn't read the bible very well, if at all. After Cain slew Able Adam and Even had many more children, including daughters.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by rmsgrey on Jul 27th, 2012, 4:50am

on 07/26/12 at 21:54:06, towr wrote:
Clearly you didn't read the bible very well, if at all. After Cain slew Able Adam and Even had many more children, including daughters.

Though that doesn't resolve the question of incest. On the other hand, nor does science - the usual picture of evolution is that we all descended from one common ancestor (or possibly one common orgy) - it's just that the incest in that model is rather further back...

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by towr on Jul 27th, 2012, 8:29am
There are plenty of asexually reproducing organisms. And also ones that can switch/'choose'.

Any way, when Cain left after his bout of fratricide he was afraid of what the people in the east might do to him, so apparently there were already more people than just those descended from the two God created.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by atyq on Aug 2nd, 2012, 5:57am
Mode troll on:
It doesn't matter, because Jesus doesn't exist. Or if he exists, he was just a human like you and me.
Troll off.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by alien2 on Jan 5th, 2013, 1:40pm

on 04/12/08 at 04:24:21, rmsgrey wrote:
The "good Calormene" - a man who spent his life worshipping Tash (the devil figure) rather than Aslan, and doing good deeds in the name of Tash, to find at the end that, while he was doing good deeds and calling on Tash's name, Aslan claimed them, just as Tash claimed the evil deeds people did while calling on Aslan's name.

Pinhead: "There is no good, Monroe. There is no evil. There is only flesh."

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Mariko79 on Apr 1st, 2013, 4:03am
We are sinners until will accept the sacrifice of Jesus, and then will born again.... ;D

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by jordan on Feb 2nd, 2014, 2:01am
Scientists proved that Jesus really existed. Just after a period of time the story about him change a lot.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Riddick on Feb 26th, 2014, 5:57am
The think i only knows is that He died for my sins on the cross, resurrected and be seated on the Throne. And i believe he was and is and is to come again. No matters what people say but I'll hold unto my faith till He comes that's what bible tells us about.

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by JiNbOtAk on Mar 2nd, 2014, 8:39pm
I was re-reading this thread (after all, towr did remark how our opinions/perceptions changes over time), and came across this post by Sir Col.


on 04/11/08 at 11:48:02, Sir Col wrote:
I believe the object of God's wrath (sending people to hell for their sins) and His grace (rescuing people for Heaven despite their sins) is one of those secret things of God. Anyone who thinks they can play the game of deciding who is or who isn't going to hell is stepping on very dangerous grounds.


Sad to say, there's an increasing number of people who thinks it is their God-given duty to determine who should go to Hell / Heaven.  :(

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by Mickey1 on Apr 4th, 2014, 3:46pm
We might want to see if we can all agree that religious scenarios with a physically intervening divine actor or “object”-interpretation for places such as heaven and hell etc. are unscientific.

A miracle is sometimes described as an intervention unexplainable by science per definition, i.e. if something very strange happened but could be explained it wouldn’t be a miracle.

This description or understanding is in line with my proposal, but I also want to include the rest, while we are at it.

(This is such a long post and I haven't read or reread all the opinions, that you might already have made your decision on the topic, in which case I apologize.)  

Title: Re: Jesus
Post by alien2 on Jun 21st, 2014, 10:17am
Oracle: [to Sad Bard Galdiar] "If you're looking for Heaven, you will find Hell, because you don't appreciate what you have."

- alien2, Dragon's Blood




Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board