• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My Christian Beliefs[W:205]

Re: My Christian Beliefs

vesper said:
This thread was started about Christian beliefs. If you are a Christian and wish to share your beliefs then do so. If not you really don't have a reason to be in here unless of course your goal is to cause trouble. In my Christian learning I recall in Yeshua's time here on earth how the Sanhedrin much like those who troll Christians around here thought they were so wise and could lay traps to trip up Yeshua. It didn't work and they looked the fools. Get thee behind me Satan.
Click to expand...
If this (per rules stickied at the top of the forum) is "dedicated and limited to discussions of religion, faith, and spirituality", one wonders what your gripe here is.

Let alone what makes you think that it is your call to decide who may participate here and not.

Beyond which (and to the best of my knowledge) the Sanhedrin are long since extinct and the OP is not Yeshua (if that was the analogy you were trying to make).

As to discussion itself, I posed a question in post #4 that apparently nobody was able to answer and has been unable to, to this date.

If you consider questions like that to constitute "causing trouble", presumably in the intention of laying traps as per your definition, maybe you're the one who should be questioning what you're doing in here altogether.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
If this (per rules stickied at the top of the forum) is "dedicated and limited to discussions of religion, faith, and spirituality", one wonders what your gripe here is.

Let alone what makes you think that it is your call to decide who may participate here and not.

Beyond which (and to the best of my knowledge) the Sanhedrin are long since extinct and the OP is not Yeshua (if that was the analogy you were trying to make).

As to discussion itself, I posed a question in post #4 that apparently nobody was able to answer and has been unable to, to this date.

If you consider questions like that to constitute "causing trouble", presumably in the intention of laying traps as per your definition, maybe you're the one who should be questioning what you're doing in here altogether.
Click to expand...

I can answer the question from post 4: you are wrong, that is a false assumption, Christianity does not automatically consign "everyone else" to hell. Some people may do that, but Christianity at large does not. Go in peace.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
I can answer the question from post 4: you are wrong, that is a false assumption, Christianity does not automatically consign "everyone else" to hell. Some people may do that, but Christianity at large does not. Go in peace.
Click to expand...
Well, you're actually singing from the same hymn sheet as I am. I did refer (in my question) to
how a belief as defined in the OP treats the moral conundrum that holding itself to be the only correct one of necessity brings.
Click to expand...
salient part bolded for emphasis by me.

I also pointed out "individual interpretation" of any religion and should perhaps have been more precise in pointing out as that to mean "by individual follower" rather than individual religion overall.

You may recall that all this was preceded (elsewhere) by the question of whether the OP held all those not embracing Yeshua as the Christ to be exempted from salvation. To which, after much skirting the issue, the OP finally admitted in the affirmative. Elsewhere and in post #23 in here by confirming (his belief) that Hindus won't find salvation.

Of course there may be other consequences to not finding salvation than simply being consigned to hell, but I'm so far not aware of them. So if you could present any enlightenment in that respect, that would be appreciated.

But then I'm aware of the fact that this is the way LesGovt sees (saw) matters, I understand your response to demonstrate that you don't share into that interpretation at all.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Christ the Servant of Jews and Gentiles
…12 And once more, Isaiah says: “The root of Jesse will appear, One who will arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles will put their hope.” 13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you believe in Him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. 14I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, brimming with knowledge, and able to instruct one another.…

Romans 15: 12-13
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Moderator's Warning:
The topic is not moderation. Going forward, there should be no further discussion of the forum sticky or any more playing mod.

*Moderation is still possible on posts made before this warning.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
Well, you're actually singing from the same hymn sheet as I am. I did refer (in my question) to salient part bolded for emphasis by me.

I also pointed out "individual interpretation" of any religion and should perhaps have been more precise in pointing out as that to mean "by individual follower" rather than individual religion overall.

You may recall that all this was preceded (elsewhere) by the question of whether the OP held all those not embracing Yeshua as the Christ to be exempted from salvation. To which, after much skirting the issue, the OP finally admitted in the affirmative. Elsewhere and in post #23 in here by confirming (his belief) that Hindus won't find salvation.

Of course there may be other consequences to not finding salvation than simply being consigned to hell, but I'm so far not aware of them. So if you could present any enlightenment in that respect, that would be appreciated.

But then I'm aware of the fact that this is the way LesGovt sees (saw) matters, I understand your response to demonstrate that you don't share into that interpretation at all.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell it seems to me that you are judged for what you know, not for what you don't know. Hindus (or whoever) have their own moral code and they are expected to live up to it. You can't violate your own conscience and consider yourself justified.

Jesus comes in where Grace is needed. An Anglican priest once told me that "you don't need to know the name of the street to use it", and it's the only way to explain the conundrum of the African tribesmen who has never heard of Jesus not being thrust into hell.

Clear as mud?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
In a nutshell it seems to me that you are judged for what you know, not for what you don't know. Hindus (or whoever) have their own moral code and they are expected to live up to it. You can't violate your own conscience and consider yourself justified.

Jesus comes in where Grace is needed. An Anglican priest once told me that "you don't need to know the name of the street to use it", and it's the only way to explain the conundrum of the African tribesmen who has never heard of Jesus not being thrust into hell.

Clear as mud?
Click to expand...

What about the person who does have knowledge of right and wrong, who claims to be saved by Grace yet continues in sin by choice?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

vesper said:
What about the person who does have knowledge of right and wrong, who claims to be saved by Grace yet continues in sin by choice?
Click to expand...

Think of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Publican had enough sense to ask for forgiveness, the Pharisee didn't think he needed forgiveness. God forgives sin, men don't.

Men like the Pharisee need to ask forgiveness for their own lack of forgiveness.
 
As far as my Christian beliefs go no man can judge if another is saved. Only G-d has the power to know each individual's heart.
As far as my Christian beliefs go I am saved by Grace through Faith.
As far as my Christian beliefs go no man has the power to change another's heart. That is G-d's and G-d's alone.
As far as my Christian beliefs go, The Old Covenant concealed what the New revealed.
As far as my Christian beliefs go, Yeshua summed up all of G-ds law in Love G-d and love others. You can love someone in all their sin just like G-d if your heart is right with HIM. For He accepts all who seek to fellowship with HIM just the way they are. The clean up through fellowship follows later with a desire to be Holy.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

LesGovt said:
Carl Sagan quotes:

............... "The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer."...........
Click to expand...

I submit the fossil record implies trial and learning, a reality consistent with an Great Designer-Creator-God.

God had to learn to make bricks before God could make brick buildings. And God had to learn to create the simple-crude before advancing to the more complex elegant.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
In a nutshell it seems to me that you are judged for what you know, not for what you don't know. Hindus (or whoever) have their own moral code and they are expected to live up to it. You can't violate your own conscience and consider yourself justified.

Jesus comes in where Grace is needed. An Anglican priest once told me that "you don't need to know the name of the street to use it", and it's the only way to explain the conundrum of the African tribesmen who has never heard of Jesus not being thrust into hell.

Clear as mud?
Click to expand...
Clearer.

More so wrt to not being able to violate one's own conscience and considering oneself justified in the same move. I guess that can be extended to any non-Christian who has in fact heard of Christ (as opposed to isolated tribesmen that never have).

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
Clearer.

More so wrt to not being able to violate one's own conscience and considering oneself justified in the same move. I guess that can be extended to any non-Christian who has in fact heard of Christ (as opposed to isolated tribesmen that never have).

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Consider the case of Cornelius the centurian, from the book of Acts. He wasn't a Jew, he wasn't a Christian, but God heard his prayers. Just Google Cornelius and you'll get the verses, I am not in a position to look them up right now.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
Consider the case of Cornelius the centurian, from the book of Acts. He wasn't a Jew, he wasn't a Christian, but God heard his prayers. Just Google Cornelius and you'll get the verses, I am not in a position to look them up right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I did.

But he prayed, to then embrace. Where would he have been wrt salvation if he hadn't?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
Thanks, I did.

But he prayed, to then embrace. Where would he have been wrt salvation if he hadn't?
Click to expand...

What is "wrt"?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
sorry, "with regard to".
Click to expand...

Well, if I understand you correctly, it wouldn't have mattered. If it wasn't today, it would have been tomorrow, if not tomorrow, then the next day. Cornelius had drawn near to God, and God drew him in.

Also, I don't believe salvation is a one time thing. Some Protestants have a doctrine called "once saved always saved" and I don't believe that. I believe you work to bring it to fruition. This is what makes some people think that axe murderers are "not saved", because a murderer cannot be saved. I say that not only was he not saved, he had no prospect of being saved because his heart was in the wrong place. I hope that makes sense.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
Well, if I understand you correctly, it wouldn't have mattered. If it wasn't today, it would have been tomorrow, if not tomorrow, then the next day. Cornelius had drawn near to God, and God drew him in.

Also, I don't believe salvation is a one time thing. Some Protestants have a doctrine called "once saved always saved" and I don't believe that. I believe you work to bring it to fruition. This is what makes some people think that axe murderers are "not saved", because a murderer cannot be saved. I say that not only was he not saved, he had no prospect of being saved because his heart was in the wrong place. I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Yes I can relate, especially to the second part about the axe murderer.

What I'm continuously finding as worthy of getting back to is the concept (by far not shared by all) that not embracing Christianity excludes one from salvation by that creed. Quite apart from that interpretation not being exclusive to Christian belief (of many) but found for instance in Islam.

Which, seeing how we're not discussing Islam here at all, continues in making me get back to the (my) original question of why any religion (here Christianity) requires itself to be seen as the only correct one and all others wrong. I simply cannot understand the take of that being necessary for adhering to one's belief (faith) if it entails marginalizing those that chose to worship in a differnt manner (or, for that matter, not at all).

I understand your previous explanation quite well regarding heathens that have never heard of Jesus (judged for what you know and not for what you don't) yet what, to return to Cornelius, of those that have been granted access to knowledge, yet choose to follow a different path or stick to the one already held anyway?

In other words if Cornelius had never prayed at all (not tomorrow or any time after) and simply stuck with his Roman gods?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Logicman said:
What would you know about what's factual or not? You don't have any formal education in theology or similar disciplines.
Click to expand...

What are your qualifications?

Who is "pete righter", and what are his qualifications? There doesn't seem to be a bio for him on his blog or even out on the web.

As for determining what is "factual" among supernatural event listed in the Bible or any book, give me a break. That's absurd. You believe them because they are in the Bible. You have no proof.

Like I said, give me your best one (1 - ONE, your best ONE) example. Make your case and include any pertinent scripture #'s.
Click to expand...
I gave you a list in an earlier post. I'm not going to cross-reference it to bible passages.

The accounts have more discrepancies than similarities. And they are serious differences, not trivia. Unless everything is trivial except, "the tomb was empty", as WLC asserts. Sorry, that doesn't wash with me.

One other point: If all four Gospels matched exactly you would claim collusion on the matter. I doubt you'll ever get four witnesses in a court case to present their evidence in exactly the same way. Right??? But they all confirm the resurrection. They're 100% on that. And until you trot out here and make your case, you'll have nothing to hang your hat on.
Click to expand...

"the resurrection" to you is simply "the tomb was empty". Practically everything else in the accounts is different. So you hang your hat on that, like Lane Craig says to. What of the resurrected Saints? Who saw that? Who completely missed it? Earthquakes?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
Yes I can relate, especially to the second part about the axe murderer.

What I'm continuously finding as worthy of getting back to is the concept (by far not shared by all) that not embracing Christianity excludes one from salvation by that creed. Quite apart from that interpretation not being exclusive to Christian belief (of many) but found for instance in Islam.

Which, seeing how we're not discussing Islam here at all, continues in making me get back to the (my) original question of why any religion (here Christianity) requires itself to be seen as the only correct one and all others wrong. I simply cannot understand the take of that being necessary for adhering to one's belief (faith) if it entails marginalizing those that chose to worship in a differnt manner (or, for that matter, not at all).

I understand your previous explanation quite well regarding heathens that have never heard of Jesus (judged for what you know and not for what you don't) yet what, to return to Cornelius, of those that have been granted access to knowledge, yet choose to follow a different path or stick to the one already held anyway?

In other words if Cornelius had never prayed at all (not tomorrow or any time after) and simply stuck with his Roman gods?
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it now.

The Roman Catholics have terms in moral theology: vincible and invincible ignorance. You will want to look those up because I won't be able to do them justice here. I'll give you my own example: I didn't understand Christianity for years because I had been taught wrong. I had what would be called invincible ignorance because I was making decisions based on what I knew, which was wrong, through no fault of my own. However, if I knew what I was doing and repudiated or refused the faith as I have seen some do, it's on me.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

it's just me said:
Ah, I get it now.

The Roman Catholics have terms in moral theology: vincible and invincible ignorance. You will want to look those up because I won't be able to do them justice here. I'll give you my own example: I didn't understand Christianity for years because I had been taught wrong. I had what would be called invincible ignorance because I was making decisions based on what I knew, which was wrong, through no fault of my own. However, if I knew what I was doing and repudiated or refused the faith as I have seen some do, it's on me.
Click to expand...
Okay, I understand vincible ignorance as something that can be overcome if one puts effort into it (the overcoming), invincible OTH as something that can't be helped (overcome).

Being devoid of faith as I am, maybe I'm trying to approach the conundrum I originally outlined too much from the point of logic, despite being fully aware of the fact that faith does't require logic in order to exist or manifest itself.

Nevertheless my queries as such are not designed to shake anybody else's faith, but rather to get an insight into how believers reconcile the held conviction that their religion is the only correct one, when that entails, intended or not, putting the religion (or religious practices) of others down. "Down" not to be understood in the veterinary sense.

I appreciate your previous explanation of (anyone) being expected to live up to their moral code and not being able to violate one's own conscience and justify that action at the same time. So would those who nevertheless engage in the pursuit of "my way or the highway" be suffering from vincible or invincible ignorance?

Or let me put it another way: is it a requirement to hold one's religion to be the only correct one, so that one's own personal faith may be "true"? And if so, how would the argument that otherwise one might as well not bother (heard from some here, albeit not from all) fit into any of this, let alone affording others the same validity take anything from the faith one holds?
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

vesper said:
What about the person who does have knowledge of right and wrong, who claims to be saved by Grace yet continues in sin by choice?
Click to expand...

Hebrews 10:26,27...
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

<alt>doxygen said:
I gave you a list in an earlier post. I'm not going to cross-reference it to bible passages.

The accounts have more discrepancies than similarities. And they are serious differences, not trivia. Unless everything is trivial except, "the tomb was empty", as WLC asserts. Sorry, that doesn't wash with me.

"the resurrection" to you is simply "the tomb was empty". Practically everything else in the accounts is different. So you hang your hat on that, like Lane Craig says to. What of the resurrected Saints? Who saw that? Who completely missed it? Earthquakes?
Click to expand...

The simple answer to the challenge posted that you referred to is that all those accounts aren't focused on the exact same time, to the second or minute. You put those on a time line and any alleged contradictions disappear.

Here's Greenleaf's Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts:

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

You have nothing.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Elvira said:
Hebrews 10:26,27...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Scripture.

I thought of Matt 7:16-20. It's all about the fruit. You can't pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistle. :)
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Chagos said:
Okay, I understand vincible ignorance as something that can be overcome if one puts effort into it (the overcoming), invincible OTH as something that can't be helped (overcome).

Being devoid of faith as I am, maybe I'm trying to approach the conundrum I originally outlined too much from the point of logic, despite being fully aware of the fact that faith does't require logic in order to exist or manifest itself.

Nevertheless my queries as such are not designed to shake anybody else's faith, but rather to get an insight into how believers reconcile the held conviction that their religion is the only correct one, when that entails, intended or not, putting the religion (or religious practices) of others down. "Down" not to be understood in the veterinary sense.

I appreciate your previous explanation of (anyone) being expected to live up to their moral code and not being able to violate one's own conscience and justify that action at the same time. So would those who nevertheless engage in the pursuit of "my way or the highway" be suffering from vincible or invincible ignorance?

Or let me put it another way: is it a requirement to hold one's religion to be the only correct one, so that one's own personal faith may be "true"? And if so, how would the argument that otherwise one might as well not bother (heard from some here, albeit not from all) fit into any of this, let alone affording others the same validity take anything from the faith one holds?
Click to expand...

Well, number one, these are not official Church Of England answers, it's just me talking. I have taken some cues from other denominations, and like you I struggled with these questions. Along with some of the things I have already said, and my overview of the entire Bible I have come to these conclusions.

And with that I need to be on my way for now.
 
Re: My Christian Beliefs

Logicman said:
The simple answer to the challenge posted that you referred to is that all those accounts aren't focused on the exact same time, to the second or minute. You put those on a time line and any alleged contradictions disappear.

Here's Greenleaf's Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts:

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

You have nothing.
Click to expand...

It is you who has nothing. Simon Greenleaf, writing 140 years ago, despite his legal training, shows himself to be just another apologist. A believer trying to erase the contradictions so evident in the passages describing the so-called resurrection. The only way he can do this is by using "premises" and assumptions, nevermind that "great earthquake" for which there is no record.

In the second paragraph under the heading The Time, we can read "To harmonize this apparent discrepancy, we may premise". Sure, you can 'premise' anything you wish in an attempt to harmonize the stories.

Second paragraph under the heading The Number of the Women, we see another assumption, one which has zero support outside of the Gospel. John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, sees fit to mention only Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Ooop, I erred, that's two assumptions - the author of the Gospel of John being "personally connected" and that the author didn't need to name any other person present before the tomb.

When Greenleaf has no explanation for an obvious contradiction, he just brushes it away. The Vision of Angels in the Sepulchre. Of this John says nothing. Matthew and Mark speak of one angel; Luke of two. Mark says he was sitting; Luke speaks of them as standing. This difference in respect to numbers is parallel to the case of the women, which we have just considered; and requires therefore no further illustration. "Yep, can't illustrate it so it ain't there."

Mr Greenleaf makes a valiant effort to find harmonization between the four accounts but there are just too many suppositions and assumptions, owing of course to the ever so small fact that Greenleaf was a True Believer. As we see with those of similar faith in these forums, Greenleaf could twist and squirm and create a whole new story using some very nice words, all in an attempt to justify what he knew was true before he even started his defence. Contradictions not allowed.

Simon Greenleaf is seen as one of the leading legal scholars of the 19th Century, author/editor of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence and a professor of law at Harvard University.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom