CHUDChristians? Hello? - Page 2

Um, wait a sec. Didn't he pretty much HAVE to die? I mean, no crucifixion, no martyr, right? Otherwise he's just another Jewish prophet, right?

Not to mention that plenty of people have sacrificed themselves for others who didn't have the distinct advantage of knowing that they were the Son of God himself. I mean, if you know you're going to be resurrected in a couple of days and rule Heaven with your Dad, the crucifixion is really no big deal.

It isn't christian persecution if a communist country forbids religion - they are going to kill ALL religion, not just christianity. Religious persecution indeed but not christian.

For this crap to hold water, christians would have to be singled out. If all religions are destroyed equally, than ONE isn't being persecuted, they all are.

Seriously, there's people in this thread trying to tell us how rough christians have it.

GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Exactly.

I'd take torture and crucafixion if it meant I was going to rise from the dead anyways and then be worshipped for all of eternity. Hell, John McCain was tortured for a hell of a lot longer than Jesus was.

He was a human man. Crucifixion, all the nails and whips and spears and dehydration, sucks. A lot. Even for Jesus.

And no, He didn't HAVE to die. He could have chosen to disobey God's will, and in fact even asked if he could. He wanted to run away, and not be arrested and killed. But He chose not to.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club:
<strong>Seriously, there's people in this thread trying to tell us how rough christians have it. </strong>

Nope just how tough some do.

<strong>GET OVER YOURSELVES.</strong>

Lighten up dude.

Yes, a good post.

However, I feel that nothing should be above criticism. Once you put something beyond criticism then you put it beyond all question and it becomes a kind of dogma. It is often thost things that can't stand up to questioning or criticism that people try to put beyond it. Satyer and parody are both a form of criticism. Simple mean spirited attacks on the other hand are not criticism, that is just being a dick.

Making fun of followers can be vallid criticism. There are plenty that do invite and deserve it.

Yes, that most certainly is religious persection. But what critics are usually refering to is the centuries of percecutions committed by christians, and the tendency of some to cry percecution over silly things. For example many call removing prayers from schools persecution of christians when what it actualy was preventing christians from forcing their religion on everyone else. That is why such claims are not often taken seriously.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club:
<strong>It isn't christian persecution if a communist country forbids religion - they are going to kill ALL religion, not just christianity. Religious persecution indeed but not christian.</strong>

Oh adn talk about splitting hairs. OK tell me this, how many Buddhists were shot in China and how many Christians? I don't have an answer either but I know where I'd put my money.

I think that the person arguing with one he thinks is certifiably a NUT CASE is more of a nut case himself.

Agreed, this is not persecution.

So why was it God's Will required his son to die again? What did sacrificing his son have to do with human sin? Why am I supposed to be beholden to THE SON OF GOD for sacrificing himself, knowing he's going to everlasting glory and godhood, when hundreds of thousands of humans have endured even worse tortures and degradations throughout the centuries without the certitude of everlasting omnipotence?

Yes, He did have to die, but that is not the question. The question is, why did He die? Was it because of a delusion, or beacuse He wanted to redeem His people from their own failure?

The scriptures do say that He was able to endure the shame of the cross beacuse of the glory that lay ahead of Him, yes. I do not think, thoughm that that would make death by crucifixtion (I should really write up what that entails some day) an enjoyable experience.

[quote]HeavyMetalThunder:
Pussy.

I suppose it depends on what your goals are. If you want to prevent others from falling into the same fallacies as, say, the Scientologists, making fun of that group is a valid means. If you want to reach out and help the people deceived by that group's dogma, on the other hand, humor will get you nowhere. In that light, while sarcasm and the like may be valid, it is also not a tool I often use.

Yes, the modern church does need a history lesson. Too many people say that they get thrown to the lions, seemingly ignorant of the fact that that was once a literal statement. On the other hand, people are also blinded by the fact that they live in a nation where the greatest persecution is the wit of Devin. America really bears little resemblance to the rest of the world.

Well, see, we loonies believe sin entered by one man (aka Adam). And you know the "wages of sin are death" line right? It's a line that's been demonized by some hard-core christians. It's not as bad as it sounds.

Well, when we die, it's our 1st death. When Jesus or whomever comes he will supposedly resurect those that those he thinks were nice/good/pleasant according to their knowledge of what nice/good/pleasant is. Those people will rise and live a happy eternal life. Now the OTHER people will be done for ever (not that they will burn forever), or stop existing. According to the book of Revelations, they will be smoked into non-existence.

That death (the smoked into non-existence) is called the 3rd death (PM me on what some christians consider the 2nd death). Jesus dies the THIRD death, so you or I wouldn't have to. Hence:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."*

Welcome to the loonie dome.

Gonna go watch some Star Trek.

*I find this text a little restrictive due to the fact that Ghandi didn't believe in Jesus, and I for one, believe Ghandi will be in heaven.

Jesus said, "I am not here to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law."

He was talking about the old covenant that God made with the nation of Israel. In the Old Testament, the Temple was set up so that onl the High Priest could offer the sacrifices of the people to God. Basically, he was the chosen liason between God and his people, who were sinners and therefore could not enter into the Temple. Fast forward, Jesus comes and He is the new people's advocate, and God intends Him, as both man and God, to be the one sacrifice that will allow all people to come to God, not just the Jews, or Israel. Jesus also said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Believing, following, taking up the cross of Jesus IS a guarantee of everlasting life in the returned Kingdom of God.

that's somewhat of the Sunday School answer, but if you really want to know more, I'd be happy to talk about it.

[quote]otisthecat:
Yup.

"Crucifixion's a dawdle."

"You're weird."

wink Sorry, couldn't resist, the way this thread is going.

Incidentally, Life of Brian is my favorite Monty Python, and I don't think it's anti-Christianity at all. Anti-Church, maybe...

[quote]Nelson Rem Koolhaas:
You can't pick and choose the rules though now can you.

[quote]otisthecat:
Sure, everyone does it. That's why they don't get all hyped up about eating shellfish, but won't suffer a witch to live.

<strong> Ghandi shouldn't have listened to Helena Blavatsky.

Isn't it kind of funny (strange, not ha-ha) that in Hindu religions, Nirvana (as I understand it) is just this kind of "non-being", and it's what you shuold strive for, to be removed from the oppressive cycle of reincarnation. So one culture's Hell is another's highest perfection.

This is why missionaries have such trouble converting other religions, despite what Jack Chick would have you believe. Completely different culturally-ingrained ideas of perfection, beauty, love, the afterlife...it's tough.

So what happened to everyone who died before Christ came along? Why does God require a sacrifice at all? What about the Great Flood? Sodom and Gomorrah? How many more times is God gonna get pissed off at the people he created and require more death?

If Christ had NOT been crucified, how would things be different? And if he did HAVE to die, how can God hold humans responsible if it was his plan all along? And how did his sacrifice affect the indiginous peoples of other continents who didn't hear or know anything about the Judeo-Christian religion until centuries after the crucifixion?

I mean, why sacrifice Jesus? How does that help in any way, shape or form? Why allow him to perform miracles that some could see, but millions could not? Why ask humans to take the word of OTHER humans, when we all know humans are mostly batshit looney?

More questions later.

Ah, but you see, there were 3x when God reconfirmed that everything was right on track with Jesus. 1, when he got baptized, and 2, when the tranformation on the mount (whith Moses & Elijah), and the 3rd, when he heard the voice of God in the temple telling him everything was on track.

That's 3 OKs from the man upstairs.

Well, when he's on the cross, he becomes sin (he did not commit sin) and takes upon the sins of that world. He soon realizes that his father doesn't like sin (but loves the sinner), and begins to have doubts. It seems no one is appreciating the sacrifice. He thinks God has abandoned him, then he says, "Father, why have you abandoned me?"

It is then and there he's thinking, "I'm up here, dying to death, and they're laughing at me, and even my father has probably abandoned me. Maybe I did something wrong. Oh man, if something does go wrong and I screw up, my sacrifice will be in vain, and I might loose my divinity, and be lost and seperated from my father for ever. And so far, there hasn't been any confirmation from God above like the past 3 times."

So he closes his eye and dies. I bet you, that when he took his last breath, he was thinking he had failed the plan of redemption.

[quote]Scott Standridge Drinks Only Beer:
This is also why missionaries should leave well enough alone. I think we have talked that one into the ground in a different thread though. Carry on.

And...but...also...

If Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for salvation to occur, and was a part of God's Plan all along...

Wouldn't that mean that Judas, Pontius Pilate, and the Jews in the crowd who cried for Barrabas' freedom were all actually just doing what was necessary to move that plan along?

Wouldn't that make Judas the 2nd biggest hero in Christian theology?

After all, no Judas, no betrayal, no salvation. See you in Hell.

But then "It is finished" (or, as it's sometimes translated, "It is accomplished") wouldn't make sense.

God doesn't get pissed anymore. Now we just have regular natural disasters. The really neat God disasters were in the long, long ago.

Erk? The Second Death is when the unrepentant, are tossed into the lake of fire, according to the Revelation. What are you refering to?

On the other hand, I agree with your "smoked into non-existence" line of reasoning, though we are in the decided minority on this issue.

See, God recommited his pact to save human kind when he told Adam and Eve, after they had fallen:

Gensis 3:

15: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Very symbolical langage. It's teling then that even both of you screwed up, there's a plan B, a way out. One that won't be pretty. The coming of the Messiah was promised then and there.

You're splitting hairs. Any christian who claims that he's got all this figured out is lying. Just as any atheist who claims he's got it all figured out. Like I've said before, there will be people in heaven that have never heard of Christ. And they will probably ask him proof of his sacrifice, hence why he's still has the mark on his hands and torso.

Now, I gotta go help launch a $15 million ad campaign that has no plan B.

My memory's a little fuzzy. Is that the one Crowley was fond of? If so, no one should have listened to her.

Speculation...

Well, "it is accomplished" doesn't means he's succesful. It just could means he thinks he did his part.

Pm me on that one.... it's a long explination that I'll get to tonight.

The Hebrew scripture all points towards Christ and His cross. Essentially, under that covenant, sin was being pushed aside, or hidden from view, until Jesus dealt with it once and for all.

An example I like, which I can't claim credit for, but also can't site:

Sin is like snow. In some places, a mere inch of snow will bring the city to a halt, because they don't know how to deal with it. We, however, expect snow, and have a system of coping with it: we invest in snow removal equipment. "Snow removal," though, is a misnomer, as all we really do is push it around until the sun comes and truly removes it.

The sacrificial system of the Hebrews is the snow removal equipment; it dealt with sin in a temporary manner until Messiah could come and deal with it in a permanent manner.

In response to your other question, God gets pissed and requires death, or blood, whenever His creations choose to sin. For most of us, that will happen at two times. The first is our natural death, which we all experience due to the fallen nature of this world. The second is either our spiritual death, when we are destroyed because of our sin, or the death of Christ, who died so we could live.

As to what happens to those who have never heard the Gospel, etc: this gets into special v. general revelation, special dispensation, and a whole host of things that I haven't studied recently enough to comment on.

No because there is always the possibility of someone else doing it. Although one wonders why Jesus didn't pick Judas as his disciple. He left the 12th slot open...

...also, remember that this was not the first attempt on Jesus' life. His contemporaries tried to eariler... Herod, and Luke chapter 4:29

First, we have the concept of free will. God gives us a choice. We can follow His will and law, or we can sin. We can choose to love Him, or choose to reject Him.

Second, we have the concept of omniscience. In short, theology teaches that God exists outside of time, and can therefore see the beginning, middle, and end of history all at once. Because of this outside perspective, the concept of foreknowledge does not interfere with the concept of free will.

Now, if we apply this to Jesus and Judas, we can surmise that God foreknew, but did not cause, Judas' betrayal, and thus choose it as the means of carrying out the intended sacrifice. As to why He choose this method, instead of, say, a lightning bolt from heaven, isn't entirely clear.

Perhaps it has something to do with the sacrificial system of the Jews. The people laid hands on the substitutionary sacrifice, then slaughtered it. There seems to be a theme that the person being atoned for must be involved in the sacrifice for it to be valid; it may be the case that, in order for humanity to be redeemed by Christ, humanity must first sacrifice Him.

While I do dig the analogy I don't think it adequately answers Singer's question. Do you have anything more specific?

Some Christians believe believe that te past, present, and future became ONE at the cross. I'll post specifics later.

In general, though this is not authoritative by any means, those who dies in the Old Testament period went to sheol, the grave, and basically slept there. When Christ ascended, those who found favor with God ascended with Him, though in spiritual, not bodily, form. The rest are still in the grave, waiting for the day of judgement, as are all who have dies without God's grace since then.

And, as I wrote above, who recieves God's grace, assuming they haven't been given the opportunity to respond to the gospel message, is a question I am not currently qualified to speak on.

Here's the big twist:

Ephesians

4: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

AND

Romans 8:28-29

28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

****************

I believe, God knew ahead of time (foreknowledge) that you and I would/wouldn't believe.

In other words:

Neo: Do you already know if I'm going to take it?

Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't.

Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?

Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to try to understand WHY you made it.

(Neo takes the candy)

I don't buy the whole "preknown is not predestined argument." God's the first cause, the prime mover, right? Therefore, if he alone among any beings knows the full long-term consequences of what he does, to the end of time and forever, then everything is his responsibility.

If I know--with absolute Godly certainty that only a deity can possess--that by putting a tree in front of my creations and telling them not to eat of it, eventually they will eat from it--there's no choice in that. God knows that if he puts the tree there, they'll eat. It doesn't matter if theorhetically they have the "choice" not to eat--the fact is, they'll eat, and God knows it. So he puts the tree there, and they eat. Whereupon he condemns them to hell.

I know that if I knock a domino over, the rest in front of it will fall. God knows that, times eternity. The difference between foreknowledge and predestination is a semantic one at that point--he's the first cause, and knew everything that would happen, and nothing could happen without his knowing it.

That is, if he existed.

You're speaking as if that was the only one tree in the whole GARDEN of Eden.

Just for the record: ow, my head.

To a point, I can't argue with you. This is one of those issues that I have to work hard to wrap my mind around, and even then, a lot of it is taken on faith. On the other hand, if God did cause us to sin, and this is all a game, or some grand soap opera, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. wink

Well, here's the best explanation I can give for this. Scripture tells us that God created us for fellowship with Him; He wants, probably more than anything, to be loved by us as much as we are loved by Him.

This presents a problem, though. I can write a computer program, to use one common analogy, that will print "I love you" to the screen every time I press a button, but it would be a fraud, as the machine is not capable of loving me. I made it confess its devotion; it had no choice, and that confession is therefore invalid.

The same is true of humanity and their God. He could have made us perfect, conformed exactly to His will, but had He done so, we would not really love Him, we would merely be telling Him we loved Him because that is what we were programed to do. To really love Him, to really be devoted to His ways, he had to allow us the choice of hating Him, and detesting His ways. That is why there is a devil; to provide choice.

Some may say that He went to far in providing these options. Do we really need starvation, or murder, or racism, or any of the other horrid things that plague this world? But I answer, is it really a choice if He doesn't let us go all the way? If you tell a child he can have a piece of candy if he can take it out of your hand, then proceed to hold it over your head, are you really offering that child anything at all?

The scripture tells us that God knew we would choose our own way, and that He has always had a plan to deal with it; that is why Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The Cross of calvary does not represent a failure in God's planning, it represents the triumph of His plan to offer both choice and fellowship to a people that, by necessity, are imperfect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thomas.galvin:
<strong>The scripture tells us that God knew we would choose our own way,</strong>

Where?

Question for you TG, are we spiritually sick or spiritually dead prior to salvation?

Revelation 13:8 says, "The Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."

There are other scriptures that I can't remember off the top of my head, but for the most part, this is a doctrine that is drawn more from the general message of scripture than any single. explicit statement.

Spiritually dead is the more accurate term, but the bible sometimes has a strange way of dealing with time. For example, God said that Adam and Eve would surely die on the day they ate of the forbidden tree, yet they did not truly die until some time later. So, one could say that those who have not accepted Christ are spititually sick, but since death is their eventual destination, one would also be correct in calling them spiritually dead.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thomas.galvin:
<strong>Revelation 13:8 says, "The Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."

There are other scriptures that I can't remember off the top of my head, but for the most part, this is a doctrine that is drawn more from the general message of scripture than any single. explicit statement.</strong>

Doesn't that Rev quote imply that our names were written in the Book of Life at the beginning? And I agree that man chooses his own way but isn't that way always the corrupt path?

<strong>Spiritually dead is the more accurate term, but the bible sometimes has a strange way of dealing with time. For example, God said that Adam and Eve would surely die on the day they ate of the forbidden tree, yet they did not truly die until some time later. So, one could say that those who have not accepted Christ are spititually sick, but since death is their eventual destination, one would also be correct in calling them spiritually dead.</strong>

I think Adam and Eve spiritually died immediately. At the instance of disobedience, sin entered the world. The wages of sin is death (spiritual death, again my opiion) and so the only way to salvation is to be resurrected. I don't think you can choose to ressurect yourself.

Yes, just as the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, so were we recorded in His book of life.

Man is capable of good and evil, but will always, at some point, fall away from absolute holiness. So, while his entire path may not be corrupt, at least a portion of it will be, and, as the scriptures say, a little leaven effects the entire loaf.

It's more of a technical quibble than anything. They were immediatly cut off from God, which is the same thing as being spiritually dead. I suppose that, in this case, I am referring more to second, or final, death, than physical cessation of life processes or separation from God.

On the other hand, I don't believe Adam and Eve were designed to die; had they not sinned, I believe they would have continued to live in God's presence for all time. In that regard, the wage of sin is both spiritual and physical death.

Ahhh but they never ate from the tree of life, now did they?

How exactly can it be a 'sin' when they were supposed to have no knowledge of good and evil? If you have no knowledge of what evil is then how can you be held accountable if you do it?

I think Jacob might be a warlock...