that sounds wonderous...some days heaven is a day off, some warm weather, good friends, a glass of wine and a nice meal...can't get much better than that... there is something to be said for moderate hedonism.
Christianity and Religion
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
popular! : )
Religion:
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made." (Matthew 5:33 NIV)
Christianity:
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:34-37 NIV)
Again, religion emphasizes public integrity, while Christianity addresses inner moral soundness.
Religion:
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made." (Matthew 5:33 NIV)
Christianity:
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:34-37 NIV)
Again, religion emphasizes public integrity, while Christianity addresses inner moral soundness.
Last edited:
I see dissembling, but nothing definitive.
Dear Motar and cj44,
Can Christians hold mutually exclusive beliefs one from another? As do Gerry and you.
Dear Motar and cj44,
Can Christians hold mutually exclusive beliefs one from another? As do Gerry and you.
Perhaps those that you seek to bring "the good news" to already have a strong faith. Who are you to determine who needs saving and who doesn't?
Cliffy, I have posted that I do not presume to know who has faith. Nor do I know where their faith is placed. Being that this is a forum for discussing matters of faith, my thoughts on the matter stem from what Jesus taught. I think if Jesus was in fact God, and I do believe He was, we should study his words in faith. No one can come to know him except through the Spirit.
My intent is not to conceal anything. If by what you mean can a Jehovah's Witness and a Lutheran hold different beliefs and both stil be saved. Yes, doctrine does not save. Only God can judge the heart. In my view the judgement has happened and God admonishes us through Scripture that we are ALL in need of a Savior. Also, I do not know if a person denies Christ as God if we they will or will not be saved. I go back to the example I gave earlier. While on the cross Jesus said to the criminal, "Today you will be with me in paradise." Did the criminal understand that Jesus was God? I don't know. The criminal had faith. The righteous will live by faith not by doctrinal knowledge. After having said that, I believe the Bible is the true Word of God and keeps us in faith. All its teachings are sound.
Yes, I did say you are like the other athiests. I didn't say you wouldn't be "saved", or that you would "go to hell". Those are both atheist and idiot sayings.
As for revelations, I don't believe any of it, as it pertains to Christ's return, of which he made perfectly clear that no one, not even himself, knows when it will be.
The when's, why's, hows, and wherefores do not concern me. They are in God the Fathers realm and will happen in his own time line. I actually feel it is a touch blasphemous considering what Christ already said about his return.
Can you give me an example of mutually exclusive beliefs, Spade?
Religion:
"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (Matthew 9:10-11 NIV)
Christianity:
"On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13 NIV)
Right, that's about where it starts, and that's where the logic of it begins to escape me. It's simply inconceivable to me that an omniscient, omnipotent, universally benevolent and loving deity would have created us so badly flawed with, you must believe, full knowledge of the consequences, then some thousands of years later provide the means to rectify things by requiring us to believe, on very bad evidence, in the efficacy of a single human sacrifice, and dooming for all time those who fail to get it. That's not a benevolent and loving deity.
Or to take an example from Sam Harris: every year around the world 9 million children die before reaching the age of five. That's about 17 per minute, on average, which means in the time it takes you to read this post, some few children will have died in terror and agony. Their parents, most of them, will be believers of one sort or another and will be praying for their children to be spared. Their prayers will not be answered. Any deity that allows the innocent to suffer like that, and their parents to grieve like that, must be either powerless to prevent it, or chooses not to. He must therefore be either impotent, or wicked.
And there's a third possibility: he's not real, he doesn't exist. That's my position.
There are so many, I will give you ten to start.
I will use the names "Gerry" and "Motar" only for illustration.
1. Gerry: the big bang as the origin of the universe
Motar: God's willing it into existance
2: Gerry: the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years
Motar: a new earth approximately 6 thousand years
3. Gerry: evolution
Motar: Garden of Eden
4. Gerry: original sin is just the dark side of human nature
Motar: the snake and apple
5. Gerry: the flood as myth
Motar: the lieral opening of the gates of heaven pouring water from the firmament
6. Gerry: the story of the sun stopping in the sky so God could have Joshua kill a few more innocent is myth
Motar: the story as fact
7. Gerry: the Exodus as myth
Motar: God had first born Egyptians slaughtered
8. Gerry: Pope as spiritual leader
Motar: Pope as antichrist
9. Gerry: **** happens
Motar: God continually interferes in human affairs
10: Gerry: The six sacraments
Motar: You've got to be kidding!
You have not denied one, Motar.
How about another six.
11. Motar: the rapture
Gerry: nonsense
12:.Motar: justification by faith
Gerry: by faith and good works
13. Motar: hell is real
Gerry: the notion of hell is incompatible with a god of love
14. Motar: the Book of Revelation as prophecy
Gerry: the Apocalypse is a description of early Christians in the Roman empire
15. Motar: communion as symbolic
Gerry: literal body and blood
16. Motar: Mary had other children
Gerry: The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, no sin, no other children
How about another six.
11. Motar: the rapture
Gerry: nonsense
12:.Motar: justification by faith
Gerry: by faith and good works
13. Motar: hell is real
Gerry: the notion of hell is incompatible with a god of love
14. Motar: the Book of Revelation as prophecy
Gerry: the Apocalypse is a description of early Christians in the Roman empire
15. Motar: communion as symbolic
Gerry: literal body and blood
16. Motar: Mary had other children
Gerry: The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, no sin, no other children
Last edited:
I have no problem what so ever with Mary and Joseph having more children beyond Jesus. I would be surprised, as a matter of fact, if they did not have more children.
The flesh-and-blood Gerry really only disagrees with one of the 16 symbolic Gerry's positions.
To clarify that one, may I quote from the New Advent (Catholic encyclopedia).
Quote:
The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.
To clarify that one, may I quote from the New Advent (Catholic encyclopedia).
Quote:
The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.
still missing the whole body/blood idea there spade. You need to read what Christ said at the last supper, and combine that with the Catholic encyclopedia.