Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

Halbhh said:

Yes, that could be confusing until one reads all of his epistles carefully. Paul means that by the standards of the Pharisees, in their overly legalistic superficial way of seeing the law, as just a bunch of rules (not a sense of goodness or true justice, but instead judgemental micro rules) -- righteousness in the eyes of some men -- that by that Pharisee standard Paul was laudable, proud.

Paul recognizes that isn't the true real righteousness, that kind of legalistic Pharisee version. That by true righteousness, such as for instance in Matthew 7:12, the real spirit of the law, the real ultimate intent, that by the higher, truer standard, he fell short (and not by just a little!) -- "all have fallen short".

Click to expand...

the law is by definition legalistic. Christ obviously ignore the law. Most clearly he ignored dietary laws declaring all foods clean in Marks gospel.

So by what standard was Christ holy? By his own standard or by law? You know what, by my own standard I’m holy too.

cvanwey said:

I actually agree here There could be varying levels of 'belief'. Thus, I ask, what is the acceptable level? Are we to incorporate the 'mustard seed' passage, or, must we follow in the foot steps of Jesus? Or is it somewhere in between?

Click to expand...

Well that part is easy, to answer that is. The notion that "God meets you where you are" is an idea that is found throughout the Bible, especially the NT. And it is also very key that your objection previously mentioned in the enumerated post actually dealt with the resurrection. As one acquaintance, I knew on an old now defunct theological board mentioned, you can actually boil all Christian Apologetics on that issue even the apostle Paul alludes to that in one verse of the epistles. The good news is even the disciples in the Gospels were in a similar position (they wanted to believe in the risen Christ, but did not believe the news they heard until they actually saw him for themselves).

But yes even a small amount of willingness to "entertain a few concepts" to quote the movie Darkstar as far as looking into the notion of such things can go along way. God can and does work with that. But it does get into the nature of epistemology etc. Especially the unofficial epistemology we use in everyday life, rather than the more academic sort.

cvanwey said:

But I do wish to challenge your statement. (i.e.) "But saying morality does not save you, doesn't mean that it isn't important to Christians as far as verifying if they are "in the Faith" and so on."

It can be 'important' to them, but it doesn't really matter?

Click to expand...

I would argue it does matter. The fact that it doesn't matter in salvation (initially speaking) means there is unlimited potential of grace which itself is important. There is a Christian Apologist I'm a fan of (David Wood) who was born a psychopath! He had no conscience prior to being a Christian, until he met a cell mate and spent a few years trying to undermine that persons Faith only to eventually question himself. It really hard to have some kind of reform like that without a massive amount of grace (because the person would be so far down in the ditch).



It does matter on the back end. There are plenty of verses that suggest it matters when we face eternity, our deaths and meeting our Creator, and the general issue of whether God approves of how we steward our lives as far as managing the talents and assets God gives us including our time, money and so on.

There are plenty of passages about works and how Christians should relate to others. If we do not repent, treat other people with love, compassion, mercy then are not Born Again / Saved / Do not really "know" Jesus etc.. To not believe that and be hypergrace is to believe in a corruption and a distortion of the Faith and well such people will find that they are not really saved the way they assumed.

cvanwey said:

As I told you a few posts back, this can get too messy. One could argue at the point (prior) to their acute change, is the point in which God stops 'judging' them....? Let's stay await from these 'one-offs' for now

Click to expand...

The extent to which some theological issue can be seen to be messy is not really something under our complete control. You seem to talk as if it fully could be. I'm going to again say, as I've implied so, so many times here on CF before, that we can only expect our intellects to take us only just so far in our attempt to "understand" the nature of God, His presence in the World, His Word, His Work within us, and any orchestration He may or may not be doing in each of our lives. Yet, time and time again, I run into both Christians and Atheists who seem to think their intellectual acumen actually could figure all of these issues out if they simply apply themselves. My response to all of that? Good luck with that!
It's messy and it will always be messy.

Let's again assume we are only dealing with 'normal' humans. You can't argue that no one, in their 'right mind', can once believe, and then no longer believe, can you?

Click to expand...

I can't? I thought I've been doing a somewhat succinct but pointed job of doing that very thing. But if you think otherwise, your continued act of simply asserting that I'm not doing this isn't going to show that I'm not.

In such a case, you then must ask again... Does God invoke the 'no true Scotsman' approach? Or, is it of whatever 'sound' decision is made at the last point prior to death, or, even in the above case, of 'sound mind?'

Click to expand...

Ok...............Here's an additional problem, cvanwey: neither you nor I can know the answer to this question. You're going to have to accept that the Bible is an never has been, and never was meant to, answer each and ever single little question any of us could possibly ever come up with. But I notice a pattern with you. You persist as if in doing so, ALL answers on one side or the other can find an answer. Well...............I don't think that's going to happen, all which fits quite nicely with my epistemological expectations.

Okay, but you are only pushing aside the problem... If God IS truth, He has ONE answer, not, 'well, it depends on the situation, time of day, or other.'

Click to expand...

God IS "truth"???? Whatever does that even mean on a human level? Have you somehow transcended the heights of heaven and looked down up the Glory of the Lord in order to somehow encapsulate what this idea of "God being Truth" can possibly mean and amount to? As for myself, I'll readily admit that I can only have a cursory understanding of what Jesus meant when He said a similar thing to Pontius Pilate. The closest I might think of it is perhaps found in something Paul Tillich used to teach, that God is the Ground of All Being, whatever all of articulated platitude could actually mean for us on some concrete, human level.

Again, take verse John 3:16-18, EVEN IF you place this assertion in a room full of scholars, whom study the Bible to the above stated standard, is there a CONSENSUS answer to this plight? This assertion makes one very specific statement:

Click to expand...

'whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already'

Click to expand...

So, then, the baby son that was born to King David who died in infancy will never see or benefit from God in His Goodness in Eternity? Is this what you really want to imply? I for one won't assume that your singular quotation somehow gets to play some Trump in the overall collective of meaning that we find in the entire Bible and in His Church, and in the Human Mind, together. No, I'm going to stick with my idea about us having to enter into and traverse God's Million Acre Wood and to keep traversing until the day we die in order to even have a fully substantive understanding of God that may be given to us. Yet, tragically, it seems that you're trying use the ol' "proof-texting" method of biblical citation that is often doomed to not only fail, but show the shortcomings of the person who thinks a simple verse here or there can in all cases prove the rule. You can do that if you want, but I shan't be joining you in doing so.

Not much 'wiggle room' there, right?

Click to expand...

I think I've more than amply opened wiggle room, and it's up to you to decide that the Christian faith is a journey and not a singular destination in the here and now. But if you can't do that, I'll just keep praying for you either way .........................................

cvanwey said:

The STARTING point is belief.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by belief and its company.

cvanwey said:

Hence, Christianity seems to encompass attributes, which really have nothing to do with morality at all, regardless of how you slice it.

Click to expand...

But there is morality which results; and the standards are better than what is commonly considered to be Christian morals.

cvanwey said:

I know I should have slightly clarified my OP Let's assume the person was already presented with the concept of Christianity. Meaning, they are aware of the claim. The concept is then quite simple...

Does 'sin' even really matter either way? I'll answer preemptively.

The answer is no. 'We are saved by grace.'

Thus, Christianity, in a nutshell, deems 'morals' unnecessary.

************

The second part, is in regards to the 'God approved' path to heaven; which seems to instead involve an amoral action or action. Belief/unbelief is neither moral or immoral, is it?

Click to expand...

Grace is only grace because of sin.

"Saved by grace" means the salvation of the sinner on account of God's love for the sinner.

Further, moral action is necessitated; not as a way to achieve a favorable position with God, or attain afterlife swag--but because it's what one ought to do.

A hungry person needs food, so feed the hungry person. Don't do it because it earns divine brownie points, but because feeding a hungry person is in and of itself the right thing to do.

-CryptoLutheran

cvanwey said:

The number of sins, or lack-there-of, is not what gets one to heaven. Belief does.

Click to expand...

False. Belief is not a good work which one does in order to merit afterlife brownie points. Nobody is saved by having the right beliefs.

-CryptoLutheran

cvanwey said:

If I commit 'sin', but believe in a resurrected Jesus, it is still possible to enter heaven.

Click to expand...

You need to turn from your sin, in order to go to Heaven. And if you have trusted in Jesus, Jesus changes us so we do not keep on sinning the way we did while we were not children of God. God corrects us, because He loves us > Hebrews 12:4-14 < if we are His children.

So, God's children do not keep on sinning without any real correction. God is changing us to be and love like Jesus, so we are ready for Heaven.

So, yes our understanding about sin does matter > you ask >

1. Hence, do the concepts of 'sin' even matter at all?

Click to expand...

Yes, they matter.

By the way, Jesus resurrected is also Jesus who died for our sins. So, yes God does care if we sin. And we trust in Jesus so we can live God's way, not so we can keep on sinning and still go to Heaven.

BigV said:

the law is by definition legalistic. Christ obviously ignore the law. Most clearly he ignored dietary laws declaring all foods clean in Marks gospel.

So by what standard was Christ holy? By his own standard or by law? You know what, by my own standard I’m holy too.

Click to expand...

Having read through the new testament books all more than just once or twice, I could help you get the pieces more correctly together -- for instance Christ did not at all ignore the law Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.. (we know He followed the law, and not only superficially, but in a more true way -- in spirit and in truth, to the real spirit of the law). But that's only good if you seek it. Do you want me to help you get all the pieces more correctly?

I think it could help some at times, but the real thing ultimately is instead to listen to His words fully, as if you were there in person (time traveled if you like), and could just listen. You'd not want to be distracted if you could be there. You'd want to hear every word.

cloudyday2 said:

Probably so, although Calvin and other theologians have similar ideas.

It doesn't appeal to me, because I prefer to think that everybody is going to make it to heaven eventually if there is a God and a heaven. But the 1st century Jews were not modern egalitarian people. It would have appealed to many of them.

It is difficult to know what Jesus actually taught, because the gospels were not written immediately and then they were probably edited for a few decades before becoming fixed sacred texts.

Click to expand...

Mark was written down 66-70 AD, only about 35 years after Christ, by the consensus of most scholars (including non believers).

That's not very long. Many who had heard Christ when young would still be alive. Most would have been sharing their accounts with others. It would not be at all hard to get a highly accurate account written down.

Right? (but there's something very fun below, so keep reading)

So just having plenty of average people as witnesses (thousands), comparing their recall, over the years, will allow an accurate consensus, of what they agree on in common.

It's how you need more than just 1 eye witness to be sure, but when you have many, then you can know something did happen.

But, there's another part, very fun.

It's likely that among the thousands were also those with 'perfect recall' too. Even though they are not needed, for an accurate account, due to comparing accounts and taking what is in common (which already would cause an accurate consensus). But, still, it's intriguing that some people have perfect recall:

I think you'll find this interesting!

cvanwey said:

If I'm somehow w/o 'sin', but do not believe in the existence of a resurrected Jesus, it is not possible to enter heaven.

Click to expand...

Elijah Went straight to heaven/did not die, because he was a righteous man that did not know Jesus.
(actually jewish tradition say 7 more where also blessed this way)

I would say the OT is full of people who went to heaven and did not know let along understand or believe in Jesus. That said.. even if they did not know who Jesus was, they still enter Heaven through what Christ did on the cross, and His final say so/judgement. (No man comes to the Father but by me.)

If I commit 'sin', but believe in a resurrected Jesus, it is still possible to enter heaven.

Click to expand...

Not just possible but this is the only way into heaven for anyone/everyone. Because Jesus says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. meaning no one is without sin. if you think you are that in of itself is a sin of pride and lying. You say no sin Jesus tell us everyone sin, that means you are claiming to be right and jesus is wrong. That is pride

1. Hence, do the concepts of 'sin' even matter at all?

Click to expand...

For the redemeded? no
Read the book of Romans. Once we turn from our sinful selves we become a new creation. not because we stop sinning because Paul says even he can not stop sinning , but because the new man in his old sinful body hates this sin. while the part of us that is a slave to sin will eventually die this new person who hated sin will be resurrected into a new form that the new person has complete control of and can live without sin.

That said The law and sin still remain for those without Christ for those who have not been redeemed. so the law does not get abolished it judges those in sin to this very day.

2. Also, is earnest lack in belief itself considered an 'immoral' action to God?

Click to expand...

"Morality" is not apart of that particular equation. Non belief in Christ if based off of what God has giving to you to understand/meaning if you never knew of Christ is not an issue of morality. Think of the parable of the talents. God will only judge a person based on what that person was given to work with.

That said if you have been given the understanding of sin and redemption then you are responsible for your own redemption through the repentance that is required from all of us.

Isn't unbelief instead an amoral action/event/cognitive construct/other --- regardless of what we subjectively define as moral/immoral (or) sin/no sin?

Click to expand...

Again if you understand sin and redemption through Christ then yes as we all sin. If not IE you never heard of Christ think of the entire Old testament who God worked with an praised Daniel, moses David elisha ect..Never heard of Christ therefore not responsible for repentance through Christ. For those who know are responsible again this parallels the parable of the talents:
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - Easy-to-Read Version
Start reading at verse 14.

And last, seems as though, at least from the Christian perspective anyways, that the lack in belief of Jesus deems an eternal separation from God...

Click to expand...

yes

To instead dwell in a possible eternal place of 'discomfort'.

Click to expand...

The bible says Hell is forever, that the torment is forever and that satan and his inner circle will dwell their in punishment for ever (meaning hell will be hell for satan not his kingdom/This world is the closest thing he has to a kingdom) The bible never says We will be burning forever. Rather Hell is designed to destroy or kill the soul.

If you do not want to serve God you are sent to Hell to die.

What if the 'soul' wishes to repent, in a manor which might please God after human death?

Click to expand...

It's not an issue of moral immoral. it is an issue of love and a want to serve. Meaning in this life God is like a king who has come to this country looking for a bride but does not have anything we can recognise as proof of his kingship. He did this on purpose to single out those who would serve him as a matter of honor and heart verse those who would only pretend to serve to try and take advantage of his riches later on, maybe even turn on him and rebell. (like some of the angels did)

If the king is looking for those who's hearts can pledge a life to him without the knowledge of what they will get in return... Why would he then wait till everyone who could see his wealth and riches were so great that anyone/everyone would initially pledge for wealth's sake rather than out of honor or love?

If you have money, or if you have great wealth, how can you seperate those who want to be with you because of you verses those who want to hang around for what you can do for them?

Now let then say you know who is who. who would love you for you verse who would love your money, but the people themselves don't.. would it be fair to create a real cross section and automatically bring people into heaven and other to hell without first some trial period to the individuals would understand their fate?

The human's fate seems sealed at human death ---> 'forever'.

Click to expand...

this is only a bad thing if you plan on changing your mind 1/2 way through eternity. Actually after the first judgement God allows 1000 years to go by to test everyone out. then he plans to release satan again to draw out all of those who do not like serving God in one last attempt to over throw heaven.

So you fate is locked going into eternity if you do not seek atonement though Christ. However if you are a maybe and 100 years in realise you are going to be working the mail room in heaven forever and want out in 900 years there will be one last rebellion.

3. Is this how God's 'justice' works?

Click to expand...

Thankfully yes.

As it makes people make a desision and it forces them to it. The only people who would not want to stick to what they decide in this life are those looking to change 1/2 through the next which will lead to more sin and pain. Look.. this life for the righteous, is full enough of sin and pain to last an eternity. I do not want any more just because someone can not decide whether or not to serve. That stuff needs to be figured out Now in this life, not in the next. if you can't then the decision will be made for you according to What God knows of your heart.

Halbhh said:

Having read through the new testament books all more than just once or twice, I could help you get the pieces more correctly together -- for instance Christ did not at all ignore the law Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.. (we know He followed the law, and not only superficially, but in a more true way -- in spirit and in truth, to the real spirit of the law). But that's only good if you seek it. Do you want me to help you get all the pieces more correctly?

I think it could help some at times, but the real thing ultimately is instead to listen to His words fully, as if you were there in person (time traveled if you like), and could just listen. You'd not want to be distracted if you could be there. You'd want to hear every word.

Click to expand...

I could also say.. Do not think that I've come to abolish the Law. Clearly if the LAW was used for righteousness, and if Paul is blameless as to the Law, then Paul was sinless.

And Christ clearly ignored the Law.

Mark 7: 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Was pork clean under the Mosaic Law? So, you have two contradictory things about Christ. He allegedly didn't come to abolish the Law and yet, he ignore it and ultimately abolished it. I mean, you are not following it now, are you?