Question 3

[ianb321red]

"Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?"

The key phrase here is "described in Genesis". The question is not "Do all Christians believe the world started?" The OP is asking about the description in Genesis. Got it yet? Described. Described

One last time - Genesis 1:1 is not a description of how the world started, verses 3ff provide the description.

Fair enough. You win etc etc

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Fair enough. You win etc etc

Respect

 

[tonybeer]

Hi Tony - good questions these!

1) Yes, Christians would try and evangelise Muslims as much as they would anyone from any other religious or non-religious belief

2) Re. Satanic - because of the mix of truth and error. Islam is the only religion that teaches things which are the opposite of Christianity, but it also teaches things that are 100% in agreement with Christianity (such as the virgin birth, Heaven & Hell, Jesus performing miracles and so on..). Very subtle, but it makes Islam very believable for millions for sincere followers. What better way is there of destroying Christianity and the church than the existence of a religion like this?

3) Re. what we believe. Interesting as what you've described (probably without intending to) the Islamic view of salvation - which is the opposite to the Christian view.
Islam is a religion where your salvation is gained or lost based on works i.e. good and bad deeds. Judgement day in Islam is essentially described as having a large set of scales where the good deeds are put on one side, and the bad deeds on the other and which ever is greater determines your eternal destiny. The only belief required for Muslims is to believe that this is part of Islam; not to believe whether this may or may not be true in a literal sense. This why, in my experience you won't find a huge amount of Islamic scholars or propagandists arguing for the external i.e. non Islamic evidence for what they accept as part of their religion. There are exceptions such as Ahmed Deedat who was an intimidating debator, but on the whole they accept the Islamic beliefs in good faith and as part of being a sincere Muslim.

Contrast this to Christian apologists such as Lane Craig, Zacharias and so on who debate all over the world the truth of Christian beliefs, and frequently draw in a whole range of non-Christian sources to support their arguments. You simply won't find this happening amongst Islamic scholars except for a very small minority.

Finally, Christianity differs massively from Islam in that it is not a works based religion. You cannot earn salvation from doing good deeds. In fact, God finds good deeds offensive as they make people proud of themselves (he actually describes them as sh*t in Phillipians, and something even worse than that in Isaiah 65).

Christian salvation is sola fide in faith alone - faith and belief in the claims and actions of Jesus as Paul describes in Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

1. So have you actually tried yourself? I just can't imagine that going down too well.

2. I can think of better ways of destroying the church than inventing a slightly different religion.

3. God doesn't like good deeds? Christians shouldn't do good deeds as God finds it offensive? This is something I never knew. I always thought Christians believed in doing nice things for other people, hence all the Christian charities etc.

So you can be the kindest person and not believe and still go to hell, yet a sick murderer who believes in God will go to heaven?

 

[ianb321red]

3. God doesn't like good deeds? Christians shouldn't do good deeds as God finds it offensive? This is something I never knew. I always thought Christians believed in doing nice things for other people, hence all the Christian charities etc.

Well I guess it's good that you asked! To be honest, when I first heard this same thing preached about 7 years ago I was also a little surprised....

Here's Tim Keller on repenting of good deeds:

Repenting of Our Good Works – The Gospel Coalition Blog

And a slightly longer article:
Reformation Theology: Repenting of our Good Works

Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."

Philippians 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ"

 

[ramdas goochta]

Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?

Other way is being evolution. Not many believe.

 

[tonybeer]

Well I guess it's good that you asked! To be honest, when I first heard this same thing preached about 7 years ago I was also a little surprised....

Here's Tim Keller on repenting of good deeds:

Repenting of Our Good Works – The Gospel Coalition Blog

And a slightly longer article:
Reformation Theology: Repenting of our Good Works

Isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."

Philippians 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ"

If the criteria of getting in to heaven is just belief in Christianity, then this to me seems incredibly injust.

So heaven is full of people who happened to luck out on the right religion and believed it, regardless of whether they investigated it or not?

I wouldn't want to praise a God that made such an injust, screwed up system, knowing full well good people who were either skeptical or just born in the wrong country would be discriminated against for eternity. That isn't a love of people in my book and not a God worthy of any kind of affection.

Maybe this isn't what you are trying to say in which case I apologise, but it seems to be.

Whats the point of all the commandments etc then? Where do they fit it?

 

[Danny777]

If the criteria of getting in to heaven is just belief in Christianity, then this to me seems incredibly injust.

So heaven is full of people who happened to luck out on the right religion and believed it, regardless of whether they investigated it or not?

I wouldn't want to praise a God that made such an injust, screwed up system, knowing full well good people who were either skeptical or just born in the wrong country would be discriminated against for eternity. That isn't a love of people in my book and not a God worthy of any kind of affection.

Let me respond to some of this from my perspective...

The criteria for admittance is NOT belief in Christianity - it is by having belief in Jesus Christ...these are very different things.

Jesus Christ tells us clearly the requirements of getting into heaven (particularly in Johns gospel). If you believe the gospel accounts, you will believe Jesus lived a blameless life, performed an array of miracles and was then resurrected from the dead to ascend in heaven. For me, these credentials provide authenticity to His claims re. heaven, hell etc...

We are all presented with the same evidence - you can read the account of Jesus Christ just the same as I can. You can look at the world around you and make your mind up re. Gods existence just like me. You can look at other religions just like I can. Who else lived a perfect live, performed miracles AND rose from the dead? This deserves our attention! Jesus Christ made it clear that ONLY faith in Him would save mankind. Do you believe Him or not? If you do, its not "lucking out"-its a decision based on a conviction that Jesus was who He claimed to be. If you reject His claims, you cannot accuse Jesus of not being clear in His warnings of the consequences - He made everything very clear...

My point is that it is a choice. I have decided to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Up to now, I presume you haven't. If it turns out that I was wise to follow Christ and I go to heaven, how is this unfair on you?! You saw the same evidence as me. You can read His claims re. salvation and learn about His life any time you like! If you choose for whatever reason that you will not accept Jesus' message, how can you then complain if it turns out to be true? Many millions of people have been convinced with the same evidence...it is not an injustice to those who reject the message - it will prove to be a bad decision...

Re. those from other countries who have never heard the message:

Faith in Jesus Christ is on the increase far more in countries like Iran, China and many Middle East countries were the gospel is banned. You will never hear about this on BBC news but if interested an internet search on subject will probably help. Suffice to say, where the message of Christ is banned, Muslims are having visions/dreams etc resulting in them giving their lives to Christ which always leads to persecution and many cases, death. This will sound like a very strange phenomena to you, but I believe God will always reach people who want to be reached...

Whatever you may feel about the injustice of those who never hear of Christ, the important point for you is that YOU have heard about Christ and can read about His life whenever you like. If you choose to reject Him, surely you can't blame anyone except yourself if it proves to be a mistake?

 

[tonybeer]

I'm stating that a system that requires irrational belief is totally unjust and immoral.

The correct thing to do is not to believe something unless there is firm evidence for it. Otherwise you'll believe everything that is stated is true.

You may be wrong and the Muslims are right, in which case God hates you and you are off to hell. Is this your fault? Are there any circumstances that you would have become a Muslim given the evidence that has been presented to you?


If I tell you I am actually God and unless you believe my claims you will go to hell, should you believe me because I've stated a consequence of your disbelief in my claim? Is it your fault you if don't believe me and are acting rationally in doing so?

So what if people have dreams of something? Something isn't real if you dream it. If I have a dream about aliens, it doesn't mean aliens exist. It just means I had a dream. Plenty of people go the opposite way as well. I doubt they just do this on a whim.

"Rejecting Jesus" - I won't believe a claim until I am given sufficient evidence. I won't say it is untrue, but I won't believe it until this evidence is overwhelming. Any intelligent God would understand this concept.

 

[Danny777]

I'm stating that a system that requires irrational belief is totally unjust and immoral.

For me it is not irrational - neither is it irrational for the countless millions of other who have accepted Christ. It is irrational in your view - thats a choice, we are looking at same evidence...

The correct thing to do is not to believe something unless there is firm evidence for it. Otherwise you'll believe everything that is stated is true.

No. Lots of other beliefs are stated to be true - I don't believe them. I choose what to believe based on what I consider to be strong evidence.

You may be wrong and the Muslims are right, in which case God hates you and you are off to hell. Is this your fault? Are there any circumstances that you would have become a Muslim given the evidence that has been presented to you?

Yes, if it proves that the Muslims are right, of course its my fault - I'm examining the same evidence re. Islam as any Muslim.

Jesus claimed to be the ONLY way to heaven. Jesus lived a blameless, miracle filled life and rose from the dead - this causes me to sit up and take notice of what He claimed re. heaven and hell. Mohammed did not live blameless life, did not perform miracles and as far as I know is still dead. For this (and many other reasons) I cannot imagine becoming a Muslim.

If I tell you I am actually God and unless you believe my claims you will go to hell, should you believe me because I've stated a consequence of your disbelief in my claim? Is it your fault you if don't believe me and are acting rationally in doing so?

If you told me you were God, I would ask examine your life to see if you demonstrated any authenticity of this claim. If you then lived a blameless, miracle filled life, died and then rose from the dead I would DEFINATELY listen to what you had to say!! Until you do this, I will consider you mortal like me!

Again, this all comes down to choice. No-one else made the exclusive claims of Jesus AND lived a life like His...no-one even comes a close second place! Based on the evidence of the life of Jesus Christ I am happy to put my confidence in Him! Since I made that decision, I haven't once regretted it. If I've got this all wrong - its down to me...

What you think of the life of Jesus Christ?

 

[Danny777]

"Rejecting Jesus" - I won't believe a claim until I am given sufficient evidence. I won't say it is untrue, but I won't believe it until this evidence is overwhelming. Any intelligent God would understand this concept.

Sorry, not dealt with your final comment...

Do you not feel that living a perfect life, performing an array of miracles and raising from the dead demonstrates that something extraordinary took place?

An intelligent God may claim that Jesus could not have lived a more eye-catching life - why not take notice of Him? What else could Jesus have done to further authenticate His claims? How much evidence do you need?

 

[Robban]

Sorry, not dealt with your final comment...

Do you not feel that living a perfect life, performing an array of miracles and raising from the dead demonstrates that something extraordinary took place?

An intelligent God may claim that Jesus could not have lived a more eye-catching life - why not take notice of Him? What else could Jesus have done to further authenticate His claims? How much evidence do you need?

Thomas did not believe either, not without evidence.
But he was not cast into hell.
Then the story goes on to say,John 20:29, Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me,
But blessed are those who have not seen me and believe anyway."
Why should it be easier to believe now than for almost 2000 years ago?

 

[ianb321red]

If the criteria of getting in to heaven is just belief in Christianity, then this to me seems incredibly injust.

No.
It would unjust if you didn't know what the criteria is (or was) for getting to heaven.

 

[ianb321red]

If the criteria of getting in to heaven is just belief in Christianity, then this to me seems incredibly injust.

So heaven is full of people who happened to luck out on the right religion and believed it, regardless of whether they investigated it or not?

I wouldn't want to praise a God that made such an injust, screwed up system, knowing full well good people who were either skeptical or just born in the wrong country would be discriminated against for eternity. That isn't a love of people in my book and not a God worthy of any kind of affection.

Maybe this isn't what you are trying to say in which case I apologise, but it seems to be.

Whats the point of all the commandments etc then? Where do they fit it?

What is a good person in your opinion Tony?

People can only be judged according to what they DID not; not what they DIDN'T know. Neither me, nor you or anyone else is in a position to conclude what one another believe or disbelieve. If a person living in Tibet dies only ever having heard about Tibetan Buddhism, then he or she would be judged far less harshly than someone who lived their life with constant contact with Christianity

The commandments are there as, well commandments for living. But these are not for us to "earn" salvation from trying to keep them. Of course, if everyone did keep them then the world would be a better place. But Jesus set us free from the law (the commandments). He knew our inherited sinful state (as described firstly in Genesis) and as much as we try we can never keep ALL of the commandments.
Salvation is given to us freely in the form of grace. We simply need faith, and we need to acknowledge that we cannot save ourselves.

The biggest problem is to firstly get people to realise what sin actually is. You won't be receptive to the gospel if you have no comprehension of the true nature of sin...

 

[ianb321red]

Thomas did not believe either, not without evidence.
But he was not cast into hell.
Then the story goes on to say,John 20:29, Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me,
But blessed are those who have not seen me and believe anyway."
Why should it be easier to believe now than for almost 2000 years ago?

WE have more and better evidence to consult in this day and age; the bible that we have today was not available back in the days of early Christianity. We have the benefit of Paul's letters and other OT writings. We have the benefit of skilled bible teachers now, and the ability to assess historical sources accurately against other. We have all sorts of online materials and ways and translating and understanding other languages. None of this would have been of this would have been available to anyone in the way that it is now where someone can sit and surf the internet and not even physically visit a library.

To be honest, we have got it easier than anyone has EVER had it. We have technology to do it, and we can sit in the comfort of our own homes and debate on forums how we have NO evidence for things that happened 2000 years ago

Not a strong argument in my opinion - it is significantly more easy to believe now than it was 2000 years ago.

 

[Robban]

WE have more and better evidence to consult in this day and age; the bible that we have today was not available back in the days of early Christianity. We have the benefit of Paul's letters and other OT writings. We have the benefit of skilled bible teachers now, and the ability to assess historical sources accurately against other. We have all sorts of online materials and ways and translating and understanding other languages. None of this would have been of this would have been available to anyone in the way that it is now where someone can sit and surf the internet and not even physically visit a library.

To be honest, we have got it easier than anyone has EVER had it. We have technology to do it, and we can sit in the comfort of our own homes and debate on forums how we have NO evidence for things that happened 2000 years ago

Not a strong argument in my opinion - it is significantly more easy to believe now than it was 2000 years ago.

It makes no difference how much technology there is, nothing can be compared with seeing it with one,s own eyes.
And this Thomas had walked and talked with him, so when someone says to him, "we have seen the Lord, he is alive," he don,t believe them, not without evidence.
So why do you think it is included, it would make no difference to the story if it were not, other than it is there as a lesson.

 

[Robban]

Or.
Do you see?
With one,s minds eye, does it paint a picture in the mind of the one listening.
Is there room at the inn?
Is there room for another picture without taking down the old pictures?
And so on.
Has the field been ploughed and evened out before sowing?
Today in the western world at least, there are so many, many time saving gadgets, we have more spare time than ever before, yet, many will say they don,t have the time.

 

[Danny777]

It makes no difference how much technology there is, nothing can be compared with seeing it with one,s own eyes.
And this Thomas had walked and talked with him, so when someone says to him, "we have seen the Lord, he is alive," he don,t believe them, not without evidence.
So why do you think it is included, it would make no difference to the story if it were not, other than it is there as a lesson.

Hi...

I imagine this account is included to further corroborate the reality of the risen Lord Jesus. The account reminds us that Thomas touched Him Jesus with his own hands and saw Him with his own eyes. This is strong evidence that this was indeed Jesus...not a vision/apparition/dream etc etc.

I think that being skeptical is a good initial approach (like Thomas). Then you have to investigate the claims of Jesus (that have implications for everyone) and then examine His life - did He authenticate His claims? I would say yes - in fact, I don't know how He could have further authenticated His claims! Ultimately a decision re. Jesus has to then be made...

Interestingly Thomas went on to become a missionary in India and was martyred for his faith in Jesus. Similar experiences befall all but one of the other disciples (John). The evidence re. Jesus resurrection must have been very compelling!

 

[Robban]

Hi...

I imagine this account is included to further corroborate the reality of the risen Lord Jesus. The account reminds us that Thomas touched Him Jesus with his own hands and saw Him with his own eyes. This is strong evidence that this was indeed Jesus...not a vision/apparition/dream etc etc.

I think that being skeptical is a good initial approach (like Thomas). Then you have to investigate the claims of Jesus (that have implications for everyone) and then examine His life - did He authenticate His claims? I would say yes - in fact, I don't know how He could have further authenticated His claims! Ultimately a decision re. Jesus has to then be made...

Interestingly Thomas went on to become a missionary in India and was martyred for his faith in Jesus. Similar experiences befall all but one of the other disciples (John). The evidence re. Jesus resurrection must have been very compelling!

Yes, all good stuff, but, who can know the goings on of anothers spirit other than that spirit itself?
What I mean is, it is a mystery, it is not black and white.
If the scales are evenly balanced it does not take much to tip them.
But if the scales are weighed down on one side it will either have to be emptied or still more weight put on the other side.
It is most definitely not easier today, not with so much varied information at the click of a button.
One thing is for sure, it is all by the Grace of God, all is in God,s hands.
With all respect for science and technology, these are just tools.
But Divine inspiration comes from above.

 

[Gadarene]

Sorry, not dealt with your final comment...

Do you not feel that living a perfect life, performing an array of miracles and raising from the dead demonstrates that something extraordinary took place?

An intelligent God may claim that Jesus could not have lived a more eye-catching life - why not take notice of Him? What else could Jesus have done to further authenticate His claims? How much evidence do you need?

The problem with this comment and your prior one is that you are automatically assuming the account is entirely true.

 

[Gadarene]

It makes no difference how much technology there is, nothing can be compared with seeing it with one,s own eyes.
And this Thomas had walked and talked with him, so when someone says to him, "we have seen the Lord, he is alive," he don,t believe them, not without evidence.
So why do you think it is included, it would make no difference to the story if it were not, other than it is there as a lesson.

Interesting, I've often thought this too.

If people back then saw and still found it unconvincing then that makes the case for a bunch of textual accounts being insufficient evidence for everyone.

In addition, if it hadn't been for Thomas behaving in a way that made him less blessed in the eyes of the Lord, Christians would not have one of their rote verses that in their eyes backs up the physical resurrection of Christ.

So.....was it really wrong for Thomas to do what he did, or wasn't it? Paul later says to test all things - and yet the Pharisees are condemned for doing the same in one of the miracle accounts of Christ. It's a bit all over the place.