Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Now as we all know the books which make up the New Testament were written between say 30-40 years after Christs death. There was no real definitive Canon of Scripture until the 19th Century at the Council of Trent.

So, the Bible was made up by the Church! The Church wasn't made by the Bible...therefore does that not mean Christian Tradition has supremacy over Sola Scriptura?

Discuss further please.

(I've kept this one shorter than the last one)

Just for clarification on the two positions Wikipedia had this to say:





To me, it seems Luther and chums didn't like the rules in place...so tried a clean slate with making up all this Scripute Alone rubbish...but thats just me.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now as we all know the books which make up the New Testament were written between say 30-40 years after Christs death. There was no real definitive Canon of Scripture until the 19th Century at the Council of Trent.

So, the Bible was made up by the Church! The Church wasn't made by the Bible...therefore does that not mean Christian Tradition has supremacy over Sola Scriptura?

Discuss further please.

(I've kept this one shorter than the last one)

Just for clarification on the two positions Wikipedia had this to say:





To me, it seems Luther and chums didn't like the rules in place...so tried a clean slate with making up all this Scripute Alone rubbish...but thats just me.

Yes, I would agree that Christian tradition is more important then the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I would agree that Christian tradition is more important then the bible.

Indeed, for all intents and purposes the Bible is actually part of Tradition after all, Canon has and can change.

Besides you can't fit every message into one book, only the really important ones so it seems obvious that some things would be the teaching of Paul or Peter but not make it into Canon. I.e. Assumption of Mary or Primacy of Peter etc.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I would agree that Christian tradition is more important then the bible.

I concur.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Indeed, for all intents and purposes the Bible is actually part of Tradition after all, Canon has and can change.

Besides you can't fit every message into one book, only the really important ones so it seems obvious that some things would be the teaching of Paul or Peter but not make it into Canon. I.e. Assumption of Mary or Primacy of Peter etc.

The problem I have is when people take the bible out of context and come up with really strange and scary beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem I have is when people take the bible out of context and come up with really strange and scary beliefs.

Like "God hates F A Gs?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Like "God hates ****"?

Or that God needs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or that God needs.

Ahh...the lonely creator...

Luther used to flog himself because of his guilt, poor man trying to please god. Of course the Mother Church wouldn't take kindly to his 95 Theses he posted to the door. The 6th along with others would make the Pope only a man and not the voice of god.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.


10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory


Of course you could buy a pardon too...

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.



http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Originally posted by debbiejo
Luther used to flog himself because of his guilt, poor man trying to please god. Of course the Mother Church wouldn't take kindly to his 95 Theses he posted to the door. The 6th along with others would make the Pope only a man and not the voice of god.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.


10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

*cough* Papal Supremacy

So we're to believe the people of earth that lived thousands of years ago, rather than the word of God?!

Some nice ideas, but the Bible is the only thing holding the facade together, the one coherent rallying point for organization among Christians...strip it of its importance and Christianity would become marginalized into obscurity in a hurry.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So we're to believe the people of earth that lived thousands of years ago, rather than the word of God?!

Some nice ideas, but the Bible is the only thing holding the facade together, the one coherent rallying point for organization among Christians...strip it of its importance and Christianity would become marginalized into obscurity in a hurry.

if you look at the state of christianity its degenerating. factions just keep splitting. im waiting for it to collapse

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So we're to believe the people of earth that lived thousands of years ago, rather than the word of God?!

Some nice ideas, but the Bible is the only thing holding the facade together, the one coherent rallying point for organization among Christians...strip it of its importance and Christianity would become marginalized into obscurity in a hurry.

The Bible was compiled by the Church...Protestant Christianity would collapse yes, but the RCC and EOC would continue as it has...

If the Bible is the word of God it is only the word of God through the Church...which made it.

mis-post.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well...considering there are more than ever now...

exactly. even the factions are splitting! mormonism haas so many diff sects its just funny now.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
*cough* Papal Supremacy Yeah, it was still corrupt.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yeah, it was still corrupt.

This is very true...

If I ignore you know who...will he just go away?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This is very true...

If I ignore you know who...will he just go away? Baba?

Jesus makes the Church......Church makes Bible....how can the Bible overtake the Church?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now as we all know the books which make up the New Testament were written between say 30-40 years after Christs death. There was no real definitive Canon of Scripture until the 19th Century at the Council of Trent.

So, the Bible was made up by the Church! The Church wasn't made by the Bible...therefore does that not mean Christian Tradition has supremacy over Sola Scriptura?

Discuss further please.

(I've kept this one shorter than the last one)

Just for clarification on the two positions Wikipedia had this to say:





To me, it seems Luther and chums didn't like the rules in place...so tried a clean slate with making up all this Scripute Alone rubbish...but thats just me.

That reminds me, wasn't Jesus supposed to have said something along the lines of Church being redundant, as God is everywhere, and not in 4 walls...
I could be mistaken, although I recall being told about that.

A church isn't a building but a people. The temple being you body.

Debbieejo has it correct

And my gift?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So we're to believe the people of earth that lived thousands of years ago, rather than the word of God?!

Some nice ideas, but the Bible is the only thing holding the facade together, the one coherent rallying point for organization among Christians...strip it of its importance and Christianity would become marginalized into obscurity in a hurry. "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:14,15). Catholicism and Orthodoxy has always held that tradition is greater than scripture. Scripture is a tradition.

Truth doesn't need a book or an interpreter. It stands alone.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Truth doesn't need a book or an interpreter. It stands alone. Except some people are too stupid to realize the truth. Therefore, God created ways for us to discern it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Except some people are too stupid to realize the truth. Therefore, God created ways for us to discern it.

Like wars.

saber

Originally posted by Nellinator
Except some people are too stupid to realize the truth. Therefore, God created ways for us to discern it.

So, you assume you know how?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Except some people are too stupid to realize the truth. Therefore, God created ways for us to discern it. Well, I believe Jesus said some things on how to define the truth. He gave many examples of hypocrites and the truth. I believe he knew that truth is all important The truth as what Truth is. Not the truth of himself as being the all of the truth, but one that can guide us to the truth as an example of it and how to perceive it, dispel falsehoods, knowing the fruits of it because the Truth cannot be masked! Even if one denies it, it doesn't make it less true.


OMG, I am becoming my mother..........hahahaha

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you assume you know how?

I know how.

(and it doesn't involve god creating an ancient puzzlepiece)

Originally posted by Alliance
I know how.

(and it doesn't involve god creating an ancient puzzlepiece)

Then please tell us.

I awaitszzzzz

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you assume you know how? I think I'm alright at it. Trying alone never works. Together with others members of Jesus's church, a proper interpretation that considers the unity of all scriptures can be found.Originally posted by debbiejo
Well, I believe Jesus said some things on how to define the truth. He gave many examples of hypocrites and the truth. I believe he knew that truth is all important The truth as what Truth is. Not the truth of himself as being the all of the truth, but one that can guide us to the truth as an example of it and how to perceive it, dispel falsehoods, knowing the fruits of it because the Truth cannot be masked! Even if one denies it, it doesn't make it less true.


OMG, I am becoming my mother..........hahahaha Jesus calls Himself the truth. And yes, He thought the truth was important.

Originally posted by Alliance
I know how.

(and it doesn't involve god creating an ancient puzzlepiece)

Science?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think I'm alright at it. Trying alone never works. Together with others members of Jesus's church, a proper interpretation that considers the unity of all scriptures can be found. Jesus calls Himself the truth. And yes, He thought the truth was important.

What if you are wrong? I think it is, or at least has been, dangerous for a few people to get together and judge others based of their interpretation of the bible. The Salem witch trials come to mind.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if you are wrong? I think it is, or at least has been, dangerous for a few people to get together and judge others based of their interpretation of the bible. The Salem witch trials come to mind.

Mass murders like that predate Christianity...

still you think that devoted followers of a religion preaching forgiveness would stray away from that kind of "action"

Originally posted by anaconda
still you think that devoted followers of a religion preaching forgiveness would stray away from that kind of "action"

You would, but I can't apologize for them or defend them, if God's real he will judge them, if he's not, then it doesn't matter...as they no longer exist.

and has the church authorities of present day apologised for the action and role of the church in the past?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Mass murders like that predate Christianity...

The fact that someone else has done evil, is not an excuse for others to do evil.

Originally posted by anaconda
and has the church authorities of present day apologised for the action and role of the church in the past?

John Paul and Benedict have in the past, and continue to do so. However, would you ask Austria to apologize for Hitler? No, because thats just stupid- I think this idea of apologizing for the past is a huge mistake because it forces people to take responsibility for things they never did.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
John Paul and Benedict have in the past, and continue to do so. However, would you ask Austria to apologize for Hitler? No, because thats just stupid- I think this idea of apologizing for the past is a huge mistake because it forces people to take responsibility for things they never did.

Ya, asking for forgiveness is really over rated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, asking for forgiveness is really over rated.

Not if its something you did

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not if its something you did

Well, I wouldn't want you to apologize, just the Church. If they have, then that is good. The real issue is this: I don't want the Church to kill people in the future, so remorse is important.

I'm sure they wont....shifty

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm sure they wont....

Let us pray they don't...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let us pray they don't...
shifty

grand that example doesnt work. if the third reich existed today as the same or similar organistion then the people in it SHUD apologise. same as most of the nazi soldiers who are still alive shud have apologised to the world and those they made suffer{in all due fairness they are not as giulty as the higher ups ad they had very few choices, but still an apology wud be nice}. asking citizens and the current generation who are neither PART of the organisation {austrians} and who have cut off ties and do not follow the organisation and have no ties to them shudnt be asked to apologise as they have nuthing to apologise for.



you wudnt ask CURRENT DAY rome/romans{who do not explicitly follow the church} to apologise for the church{ cut off ties from it to many extents, had no hand in the past. are not part of the same old organisation that persists to this day and has its fair share of blood on its hands even today- yea ud be surprised, with trials have been substitued by supporting isreal, holy wars in africa, spreading disinformation which makes people not use contraception and STDs spread like wildfire, economically unfair market practices to accumulate walth and disadvantage other relegions, corruptption etc to gain economic power, the percistance of of psychologically oppressive ideologies to make follower and children of followers suffer etc etc etc}. but you wud DEFINATELY ask the church for an apology as it is the same organisation which has persisted through the ages and NEVER apologised for its behavior or specifically condoned it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if you are wrong? I think it is, or at least has been, dangerous for a few people to get together and judge others based of their interpretation of the bible. The Salem witch trials come to mind. God is forgiving if I were wrong, so long as my heart is good. God looks to the inside and judges accordingly.

Originally posted by Nellinator
God is forgiving if I were wrong, so long as my heart is good. God looks to the inside and judges accordingly.

There is an old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is an old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Relevancy?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Relevancy?

You say, if I'm wrong I will be forgiven, if my intentions are good. However, you have not addressed the damage your wrong deeds could have made. If you condom someone wrongly, and you cause that person damage, how can you be forgiven? The consequences of your actions will manifest themselves in your life regardless of forgiveness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You say, if I'm wrong I will be forgiven, if my intentions are good. However, you have not addressed the damage your wrong deeds could have made. If you condom someone wrongly, and you cause that person damage, how can you be forgiven? The consequences of your actions will manifest themselves in your life regardless of forgiveness. Forgiveness only works when under God's grace however. Wrong works are punished by God. And yes, it is likely that they will effect you in your own life, regardless, it is apart of penance.

Also, LOL at condom for condemn.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Forgiveness only works when under God's grace however. Wrong works are punished by God. And yes, it is likely that they will effect you in your own life, regardless, it is apart of penance.

Also, LOL at condom for condemn.

Dam spell checker...

God wil condom us all.

Originally posted by Alliance
God wil condom us all.
You are in a funny mood today!

Being in lab too long will do that to ya.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now as we all know the books which make up the New Testament were written between say 30-40 years after Christs death. There was no real definitive Canon of Scripture until the 19th Century at the Council of Trent.

So, the Bible was made up by the Church! The Church wasn't made by the Bible...therefore does that not mean Christian Tradition has supremacy over Sola Scriptura?

Discuss further please.

(I've kept this one shorter than the last one)

Just for clarification on the two positions Wikipedia had this to say:

To me, it seems Luther and chums didn't like the rules in place...so tried a clean slate with making up all this Scripute Alone rubbish...but thats just me.

Wikipedia may be slightly off in its description of sola scriptura from the text you have quoted.

The typically understood concept of sola scriptura is closer to solum Novum Testamentum as the New Testament is taken in precedence over the entire Old Testament. Thus you are attacking a fallacious concept, that in itself denies the divine nature of half the Bible.

Perhaps a slogan more in line with the ideal espoused much of Christianity is sola scriptura would be sola scriptura et sola decreta conciliorum, "the scriptures and the decrees of the councils alone." Which is closer to your claim, which states that the scriptures and tradition are what defines Christianity.

The question must also be addressed, where is tradition recorded and what is tradition? Is the evolved version of "Christian tradition" an accurate representation of the traditions of the early Christians and the Apostles? Where is the "Christian tradition" that would define Christianity recorded? Is Christianity a plastic religion that alters itself to fit the people then? What of the tradition of monetary indulgence? Is this tradition then what defines Christian forgiveness?

What tradition exists in the Bible (the entire Bible, not only the New Testament) for understanding God's interaction with man? The Bible overwhelmingly shows direct interaction, the Bible does not show a tradition of personal understanding without divine intervention either direct or through heavenly messenger in some manner. Prior to Christ we have prophets throughout, few predicting future occurrence, most merely relating God's messages with man. We have the same following Christ's death and resurrection. Following Christ we have the day of Pentecost, angels presenting information to man, we have Paul and his vision and assignment, we have Peter and his direction as to the Jewish dietary law, we also have other examples. Given this, what in current Christianity actually follows the traditions presented in the Bible, which is our most direct recording of early Christian tradition?

*"...it is apart of penance..."

***Spoken like the good papist that you are.

Marchello

Originally posted by Nellinator
Forgiveness only works when under God's grace however. Wrong works are punished by God. And yes, it is likely that they will effect you in your own life, regardless, it is apart of penance.


1) I would rather recieve the forgiveness of the human being I hurt, than the God I cannot see or hear. Whether or not God forgives me, would not take away the guilt I would have if I hurt another person that badly. Not in a million years.

2) I beleive in Karma. Not the "you will be reborn as a worm" karma, but the web of causation, the cycle of cause and effect (if you will) that begins with one thought, emotion, and/or action, and continues in a cycle of that same likeness.

Harboring hatred for another, will also hurt myself in the long run. I beleive that only I can change my Karma. Praying to God is a tool that I can use to push myself into changing my karma, but ulmately it is my responsibility and doing that will change me.


The one thing I don't like about Christianity's idea of salvation is that once I "repent", I am alleviated of all responsibility for my wrongs. That's a cop out.



3) If that kind of suffering or punishment is penance, than would you say Hell is Eternal Penance ?






Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, LOL at condom for condemn.



That is So0o0o0o0o something I would do droolio

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) I would rather recieve the forgiveness of the human being I hurt, than the God I cannot see or hear. Whether or not God forgives me, would not take away the guilt I would have if I hurt another person that badly. Not in a million years.

2) I beleive in Karma. Not the "you will be reborn as a worm" karma, but the web of causation, the cycle of cause and effect (if you will) that begins with one thought, emotion, and/or action, and continues in a cycle of that same likeness.

Harboring hatred for another, will also hurt myself in the long run. I beleive that only I can change my Karma. Praying to God is a tool that I can use to push myself into changing my karma, but ulmately it is my responsibility and doing that will change me.


The one thing I don't like about Christianity's idea of salvation is that once I "repent", I am alleviated of all responsibility for my wrongs. That's a cop out.
According to Bible we are supposed to repay those we sinned against greater than we sinned against them. It's the principle of restitution. In this way we hope to earn the forgiveness of those we sinned against and spread the love of God.

Causality is a good predictor, but doesn't always work out in my experience. It's not a bad principle, but I combine it with the knowledge of God as a just judge that will repay wrongs at judgment.

God does not alleviate our responsibilities to right our wrongs on earth to the best of our ability.

That idea of salvation is a false theology. If one is saved, but continues on sinning because of it they will be victims of God's judgment, they will not be allowed into heaven because that would be unrepentant sinning.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6: 1-23

Long, but it all addresses what you are talking about.

Earned?? I thought it was a gift not of works.

Jesus didn't say it was earned, did he?

Originally posted by Nellinator
According to Bible we are supposed to repay those we sinned against greater than we sinned against them. It's the principle of restitution. In this way we hope to earn the forgiveness of those we sinned against and spread the love of God.

Causality is a good predictor, but doesn't always work out in my experience. It's not a bad principle, but I combine it with the knowledge of God as a just judge that will repay wrongs at judgment.

God does not alleviate our responsibilities to right our wrongs on earth to the best of our ability.

That idea of salvation is a false theology. If one is saved, but continues on sinning because of it they will be victims of God's judgment, they will not be allowed into heaven because that would be unrepentant sinning.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6: 1-23

Long, but it all addresses what you are talking about.




So would you say it is more about following Jesus' example, as opposed to just asking him to save you ?



Because I continue to hear arguments about how "being a good person" isn't enough, and only by asking Jesus to save you, will you be "redeemed" or "become a better person" or whatever the point to salvation really is.


On that note, what is the actual point to beleiving in Jesus ?


Is it to become a better person, or to just enter Heaven ?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Earned?? I thought it was a gift not of works.



That is exactly my question. I was always told that your works mean nothing, only beleif in Jesus means anything....

The actual point of believing in Jesus is to save you from an imaginary place created by people.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That is exactly my question. I was always told that your works mean nothing, only beleif in Jesus means anything.... I believe it was Paul who states it is earned, if I remember right.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The actual point of believing in Jesus is to save you from an imaginary place created by people.



But when I was younger I always thought that it was to follow his example, and achieve peace with others.

I didn't think Fear was the motivation, I thought it was Love. Until other religious people derailed that belief.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But when I was younger I always thought that it was to follow his example, and achieve peace with others.

I didn't think Fear was the motivation, I thought it was Love. Until other religious people derailed that belief. I thought so too. Some churches teach it that way, just as they do in Vacation Bible school. All fun and easy at first until..........they lower the boom of works, earned, and protestation of others. Then the kids go home and start preaching to their parents and friends. They start judging people. A smart parent would yank them out of there and teach them what Jesus was really trying to say.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Earned?? I thought it was a gift not of works.

Jesus didn't say it was earned, did he? Wow, why don't you read it all in context. We earn the forgiveness of people, not God. God's grace is a free gift.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
So would you say it is more about following Jesus' example, as opposed to just asking him to save you ?



Because I continue to hear arguments about how "being a good person" isn't enough, and only by asking Jesus to save you, will you be "redeemed" or "become a better person" or whatever the point to salvation really is.


On that note, what is the actual point to beleiving in Jesus ?


Is it to become a better person, or to just enter Heaven ? It's both.

We saved by grace. We perform good works because of our love of Jesus and our desire is to see all people saved by that same grace and it is also the desire of God.

"For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:2-4

Believing in Jesus comes from our desire to know God, which transforms into love, which becomes our purpose.

If it's free, then are you saying all we have to do is believe and do nothing else?





Believing in god has little to do with being saved. It may be a tool to know Jesus to try to understand god, yet Jesus was only pointing the way though his parables.

Originally posted by debbiejo
If it's free, then are you saying all we have to do is believe and do nothing else?





Believing in god has little to do with being saved. It may be a tool to know Jesus to try to understand god, yet Jesus was only pointing the way though his parables. No. If we continue sinning, we are rejecting grace or have not accepted it yet.

Except the part where Jesus says, "I am the way". Pretty clear.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, why don't you read it all in context. We earn the forgiveness of people, not God. God's grace is a free gift.


It can't be free when you have to earn it. That's a contradiction.



Originally posted by Nellinator
We saved by grace. We perform good works because of our love of Jesus and our desire is to see all people saved by that same grace and it is also the desire of God.


Grace is "doing God's work" ? ....right ?

-So if you do loving things for other people, without beleiving in God, what you do call that ?


-What if I am a man or woman in a wheel chair, and can't really do much ? What do I do to enter Heaven ?

-What about someone in a coma ? What if someone does not repent before hitting a coma, and then dies much later? Never having the chance to "repent" before death. What happens ?


-What about someone who has split personality, or someone who is mentally impaired ? How does this person earn salvation ?




Originally posted by Nellinator
"For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:2-4



What about women ?






Originally posted by Nellinator
Believing in Jesus comes from our desire to know God, which transforms into love, which becomes our purpose.


That sounds beautiful, but you can be filled with Love without knowing about God or Jesus. It's always been that way, and can always be that way.

Then what ? What becomes God's purpose if he is not required to have and give love ?

Originally posted by Nellinator
No. If we continue sinning, we are rejecting grace or have not accepted it yet.

Except the part where Jesus says, "I am the way". Pretty clear. Oh, then it is earned. One must do something. Do it or be lost.

Jesus is pointing the way though his knowledge and teachings.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It can't be free when you have to earn it. That's a contradiction.






Grace is "doing God's work" ? ....right ?

-So if you do loving things for other people, without beleiving in God, what you do call that ?


-What if I am a man or woman in a wheel chair, and can't really do much ? What do I do to enter Heaven ?

-What about someone in a coma ? What if someone does not repent before hitting a coma, and then dies much later? Never having the chance to "repent" before death. What happens ?


-What about someone who has split personality, or someone who is mentally impaired ? How does this person earn salvation ?








What about women ?









That sounds beautiful, but you can be filled with Love without knowing about God or Jesus. It's always been that way, and can always be that way.

Then what ? What becomes God's purpose if he is not required to have and give love ? Free = available to any who want it. Presents at Christmas are free, but you have to open them first. It's the same principle.

No, grace is forgiveness for those willing to accept it.

There are many things that one can do in a wheelchair, but I think you are getting at something else, to which the answer would be that God judges by intentions, our heart, not by what we can and cannot physically do.

Basically the Bible says that if you are not responsible for your sin, then you will be shown mercy.

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked (Luke 12:47-48 NIV).

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22 NIV).

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13 NIV).

The person in the coma will face judgment. Perhaps they will be forgiven, perhaps not. I'm not the judge to be telling you.

The Greek word used is "anthropos" which simply refers to any member of the genus Homo which includes women. In the translation and even in current popular language man can refer to all of humanity.

I'm talking about the love of God here, not love for other people, which is also important.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Free = available to any who want it. Presents at Christmas are free, but you have to open them first. It's the same principle.



I think that is a bad analogy. Actually a terrible one.

Doing works in God's name takes a hell of a lot more effort than opening the wrapping paper of a gift.

Secondly, if you have to earn something, than it is not free. Free does not mean available to all. Something can be only available to one person, and still be free...like a Christmas present, again.

Free means you do not have to pay for it, or earn it, only ask for it. Ask and Recieve. Nothing in between. No conditions, no payment. That's what Free means.


Either it is earned, or it is free. JIA seems to teach that it is free, while you seem to argue that it is earned. Either way is fine, but it can't be both.



Originally posted by Nellinator
No, grace is forgiveness for those willing to accept it.


But what good is it for ? IS the only Good to enter Heaven ?





Originally posted by Nellinator
There are many things that one can do in a wheelchair, but I think you are getting at something else, to which the answer would be that God judges by intentions, our heart, not by what we can and cannot physically do.


That is true, I used a bad example.

What I meant was some people have circumstances which may not allow them to help others. What happens to them ?






Originally posted by Nellinator
Basically the Bible says that if you are not responsible for your sin, then you will be shown mercy.


So this is in regard to mental illness...can you show me the verse ?




Originally posted by Nellinator
That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked (Luke 12:47-48 NIV).


It still says the person in ignorance (or disability) will be punished.




Originally posted by Nellinator
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22 NIV).


But what about before Christ's incarnation on Earth ? Did they have excuses before ?





Originally posted by Nellinator
Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13 NIV).


Most violence occurs in ignorance though....






Originally posted by Nellinator
The person in the coma will face judgment. Perhaps they will be forgiven, perhaps not. I'm not the judge to be telling you.


I know you don't know the answer. I was just challenging you to think about that one.






Originally posted by Nellinator
The Greek word used is "anthropos" which simply refers to any member of the genus Homo which includes women. In the translation and even in current popular language man can refer to all of humanity.



That is true, my mistake.




Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm talking about the love of God here, not love for other people, which is also important.



But you see, that's my point....


To me, the Love for other people is far more important than Love for God. God doesn't need anything from you. Other people do, however.


The love I feel from another person is far more effective, since I know for a fact it's there (or alteast feel it enough).

The Love I feel "from God" could be nothing more than my own delusion supplied by my own ego and power of suggestion. Even if that is not the case, God is supposed to love me. If he is Love embodied, than he is supposed to Love me no matter what.

Love between people is far more precious to me. It takes a lot for a person to put aside thier own ego, comfort, and security to put me before them. It costs a person a lot more to love me, especially If I give them a hard time.



Do not get me wrong...

I am not an Atheist. I pray every day. But my concept of God differs from your own. I do not define God through gender (male or female), or give it a persona. To me God is every mother and father, every human and animal, every plant, the supreme mind. God is the Universe...that is what I beleive. God is far more grand than something we can define with our limitted senses and knowledge.

I beleive that the Universe is God, and that God exists through us. The universe becomes self aware through concious life. I beleive that the concious mind, through influence, biases, and culture can become detached from God. I beleive the subconcious mind is where we might find this God, since the subconcious mind is beleived to be the universal mind-collective knowledge.

Long story, which I will not preach to you about, since you have your own ideas. But I do not necessarily reject your intepretation of God. I just think you limit God through your definitions.


I beleive "Yahweh" is one face that God has. I also beleive the God and Goddess of Wicca is another face. And so on, and so on.




But to me, what God is or isn't does not matter.


The way we treat each other matters. More than anything. Desire to go to Heaven is not a genuine reason to help other people. The genuine desire to see others safe and happy is the true altruism.


I do not help another because I think I will go to Heaven, or because I think I will be rewarded in karma. Both those reasons are selfish and based on fear.

I help others, because I hate to see others suffer. It breaks my heart. I imagine what if this homeless or sick person was my mother or father ? Wouldn't I want another to help them ?

Well, that is my promise to myself and others. I help because I do not want to see others suffer. And I can only do my part.


I'm sure you want to see others happy too, but what I am trying to say is that you do not need "God" to do so. All you need is peace with yourself, and to learn how to love others unconditionally.

If God is your answer, and this Faith is your method to doing so, than so be it. I wish you luck with it.

Man, I hate such long things.

guess you should refer to this god as it instead of he then

Originally posted by debbiejo
Man, I hate such long things.

liar

There is such a thing as tooooooo long..

Originally posted by debbiejo
There is such a thing as tooooooo long.. It's called being black.