Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Chillmeistergen, why don't you care whether you die in your sins or not?
Because I'd have lived my life the same anyway, I try to be good person, but, not so I get into heaven that seems to me to be exactly the wrong reason for being good. I don't believe that being empathetic should be for personal gain and to me that's what all this dying in your sins or not stuff is about. Plus I think I should be able to follow my own rules for my own life, if I consider it to be a sin in terms of my own conscience then I won't do it, but, I do not feel that I need to be told what's good and what's bad. I'll make my own mind up.
I do however, respect others beliefs and it's up to anyone to follow whatever they want in my book. I'm not really concerned about what religion people follow as long as they are essentially a good person.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Because I'd have lived my life the same anyway, I try to be good person, but, not so I get into heaven that seems to me to be exactly the wrong reason for being good. I don't believe that being empathetic should be for personal gain and to me that's what all this dying in your sins or not stuff is about. Plus I think I should be able to follow my own rules for my own life, if I consider it to be a sin in terms of my own conscience then I won't do it, but, I do not feel that I need to be told what's good and what's bad. I'll make my own mind up.I do however, respect others beliefs and it's up to anyone to follow whatever they want in my book. I'm not really concerned about what religion people follow as long as they are essentially a good person.
Being good is not the issue, being born again is. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death (physical and spiritual). The gospel (i.e. the good news) is that Jesus died to redeem the world from the wages of sin (so that we could receive eternal life when we die). But this life is only found in Jesus Christ. Being good is not the crux, being saved from your sins is. If you die in your sins you will not have eternal life. But if you die saved from your sins you will have eternal life. You will go into Heaven, into the presence of the Savior of the world--Jesus Christ, instead of into Hell.
What do you mean by die in my sins exactly? Are you saying that my 'sins' should always be answerable to a divine presence? This makes very little sense to me, it seems to just be enforcing yet another hierarchy.
Surely good should reign over evil, but what you seem to be saying is that as good as a person is they must be good and worship Jesus to enter heaven. Couldn't this be seen as discriminatory?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
What do you mean by die in my sins exactly? Are you saying that my 'sins' should always be answerable to a divine presence? This makes very little sense to me, it seems to just be enforcing yet another hierarchy.Surely good should reign over evil, but what you seem to be saying is that as good as a person is they must be good and worship Jesus to enter heaven. Couldn't this be seen as discriminatory?
For by one man’s disobedience many were MADE SINNERS. Because of Adam’s disobedience (he disobeyed God concerning eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) every human being is made (or born) a sinner.
Bible references: Romans 5:19; Genesis 2:16-17, 3:6; Romans 5:12, 14-15, 19
Through Adam, sin (or the law of sin and death) entered the world and into human nature. Adam passed his sinful nature and consequences of sin (which is separation from the glorious life and presence of God Who is in Heaven, and physical death) on to his children, who passed it on to their children, who in turn passed it on to their children, all the way down to us today. Consequently, all people are born sinful and separated from the life and presence of God (or spiritually dead) because of Adam‘s sin. We will all die physically one day because the law of sin and death that Adam allowed into the world affects our entire nature (spirit, soul, AND BODY). We inherited Adam’s consequence for sin which is death (spiritual and physical death). Sin causes death because it separates us from the glorious life and presence of God. That’s why we have to get born again (spiritually) because we are spiritually dead (or separated from the glorious life and presence of God Who is in Heaven).
Bible references: Romans 8:2, 5:12, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Ephesians 2:1, 5, 4:18; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 2:1, 5, 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 3:23; John 3:3, 5; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30; 2 Timothy 2:19
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
bloody hell you know your bible don't ya. So basically according to Christianity, although good natured, my ethos will not get me into heaven. It's a shame, but I'm not sure I want to be part of club with so much emphasis on exclusivity.
The family of God is not a club. No, God excludes no one from being a part of His family. All are invited to receive eternal life (through Jesus Christ of course) and to come to Heaven when they die--including you.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The family of God is not a club. No, God excludes no one from being a part of His family. All are invited to receive eternal life (through Jesus Christ of course) and to come to Heaven when they die--including you.
Yes I realise it's not a club, I have no problem with being invited, my problem is that I have to meet the specific rules and regulations to actually get into this utopia that is heaven. This is what baffles me.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes I realise it's not a club, I have no problem with being invited, my problem is that I have to meet the specific rules and regulations to actually get into this utopia that is heaven. This is what baffles me.
How difficult is it to believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and to confess Him as your Lord and Savior?
How do people explain scriptures such as The Gnostic texts, Infancy of the gospel according to THOMAS, Phillip, Mary of Magdalene and countless of textes that were omitted because the Church simply didn't see it fit to put in because of budget or too controversial?
What kind of religion picks and chooses what it deems as real and unreal?
Originally posted by LordFear
How do people explain scriptures such as The Gnostic texts, Infancy of the gospel according to THOMAS, Phillip, Mary of Magdalene and countless of textes that were omitted because the Church simply didn't see it fit to put in because of budget or too controversial?
What kind of religion picks and chooses what it deems as real and unreal?
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/inerrancycanon.htm
The Canon
Another argument made by non-believers against Scripture is directed toward the canon of Scripture. The canon is that which establishes which ancient literary documents contain the inspired words of God, and thus are authoritative in the life of the Christian believer. It is often argued that men decided what to include in the canon, unjustly ruling out some books while including others without just reason. The process is pictured as authoritarian and arbitrary. The goal of such argumentation is to cause Christians to doubt that they truly possess God's word, if such a word truly exists at all.
It is true that man made a historical decision as it pertains to which books would be included in the canon, but this fact does not mean that the decision was made by man alone. Only if one presupposes that God does not exist could one rule out divine intervention in the process. Such a presupposition is unfounded and not provable. It is entirely possible that God could have led the ancient church to know which of the many extant literary works made in the name of Christ truly contained His word and which did not. This is even more telling if we allow for the fact that God was also responsible for the content of the books. If God could move on certain people to record His words, certainly He can move on other people to preserve His word in a canon dedicated to the presentation of His word.
It should be understood that the development of the canon was not a one-time historical event. While it is not my goal to present the historical development of the canon, let it suffice to say that the contents of the canon was not a decision made by one particular person, or even a group of people on one particular day. The establishment of the canon was a process that developed over time and in many diverse geographical areas of the ancient church.
What came to be accepted as the canon of Scripture was not exactly what one would call an announcement either. What had been officially accepted as the contents of the NT canon was not much of a development over what the church had held on an unofficial level for centuries. While there were a few books that had been disputed as to whether or not they were truly the inspired word of God, most of the books in the present canon had been accepted by the church at large by the end of the first-century. In fact, it took so long for any formal canon to develop because the church saw little need for such a pronouncement because there was such widespread agreement on the issue.
Several factors led the church towards making an official NT canon of Scripture. First, was the persecution by Emperor Decius, who killed Christians that would not turn their sacred writings over to the authorities to be burned. At such a point it becomes very important to determine once and for all which books you are willing to die for and which you are not!
Secondly, heretics arose, such as Marcion, who denied the inspiration of many books contained in the traditionally accepted, yet informal canon. The church reacted because the church had a long-time unofficial acceptance of the authority of those books. When one challenged this general acceptance the church saw the need to officially decide and set forth which books contained God's words and which ones were merely man's words. The very fact that the church reacted to Marcion demonstrates the traditional and widespread acceptance of the books in today's canon. The church reacted so violently to Marcion because he was rejecting the books they had traditionally believed to be God's inspired words. This demonstrates the existence of a very early, informal cannon, not an arbitrary decision made hundreds of years after the writings to which many would have found objectionable.
Let's just assume, however, that the formation of the canon was a purely a human work, God having no part in it because He does not exist. If so, reason would cause us to confess that all books that belonged in the canon are in the canon because ultimately the decision was a purely human decision.2 The church could include and exclude whatever books it wanted to and nobody could fault them for such. One could not say that they put the wrong books in there, or that there are lost books that should be in there. Such a notion presupposes a superior ideal to which the canon had to conform, but failed to do so. But such an ideal could only come from something higher than man-some higher purpose to which some of these writings were directed. If there is no God, none of the books under consideration had any more significance than a grocery list. If there is no God then there is no purpose or ideal, and thus the church could not have messed up on their selection for the canon. What was put in the canon belonged in the canon, and what was excluded did not belong because that is what those particular people decided, and they could do whatever they so desired to do. If we exclude God from the development of the canon we cannot fault those who established it, claiming they failed in some way.
The argument of an error-laden canon will not work if we assume the existence of God either. If God was involved in the formation of the canon He would not have allowed the church to decide for the wrong books. God does not try. He accomplishes that which He purposes (at least according to the Christian understanding of God's person). If there was a God who inspired individuals to record His words for the benefit of others, then God possessed the motive, power, and ability to direct His people to include the books He truly inspired and exclude those He did not. If we reason that God does exist it is most reasonable to conclude that the books in the canon are there because God wanted them there, because they are His true words.
In conclusion, whether one views the Bible as a purely human work or as a divine work, the canon cannot be argued with. It is complete and perfect. If there is no God then it is a complete and perfect collection of worthless thoughts of men. If there is a God it is a complete and perfect collection of the words He desired all of mankind to hear. The Christian can have every bit of confidence that the canon contains the books God inspired, and excludes those that He did not inspire. There are no missing books of the Bible, and there are no extra books. We have been given the word of God, preserved for us through divine inspiration and preservation.
The Canon excerpt taken from: Defending the Inerrancy and Canon of Scripture
by
Jason Dulle
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1. Greg Koukl, "Does God Try?"; available from http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm; Internet; 21 May 2002.
2. Greg Koukl, "No Lost Books of the Bible"; available from http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/nolostbk.htm; Internet; accessed 15 October 2002.
Re: The fool has said in his/her heart there is no God
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveDo this and you will be saved...maybe.1) Humble your self before God.
2) Ask God to forgive you for all of your sins, and then ask Jesus Chrst of Nazareth to save you from your sins.
3)Pick up Bible and the Gospel According to John (this gospel account emphasizes the deity of Christ Jesus.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Exactly, a lot of which have no relevance to whether or not someone is a good person.
With respect to Christianity good works serve simply to evince one's salvation, never is it the basis of one's salvation. Faith in Jesus Christ alone is the foundation upon which salvation rests.
In the Beginning...Soup?
©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission
Chapter 6
"If even one step in the evolution from chemicals to a first cell was scientifically impossible, life could not have formed that way. Not one of the main ingredients of cells: proteins, cell membranes, DNA, RNA, or information will form. All must have been created. I have not found any valid evidence for abiogenesis. Do you know of any? Until real evidence is found, the illusion of abiogenesis should not be used to turn students from God to atheism.
The famous astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle once did a mathematical analysis and concluded: "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution."1 To provide an alternative to the Creator, Hoyle suggested that life came from some place far off in space.
The evidence that life could not have begun on earth by naturalistic means is so overwhelming that even many atheists agree. Life could not have evolved from chemicals on this earth.
Their influence has been a major voice in guiding the governments of the world to spend billions of dollars in search of a far off planet from which life might have come. Those who are still convinced that life evolved here can hardly deny that many of their fellow atheists think the evidence is against it."
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]In the Beginning...Soup?©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permissionChapter 6
The evidence that life could not have begun on earth by naturalistic means is so overwhelming that even many atheists agree. Life could not have evolved from chemicals on this earth.
[/B]
That is actually one of the hypotheses they've come up with for abiogenesis. Some Meteors have actually been found to contain amino acids