Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it's an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I dont believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened."
Besides, I think God would rather a peaceful and kind atheist over a malevolent one.
I'm just saying that, here on Earth, atheists are not necessarily bad people because they are atheist. Besides, I think God would rather a peaceful and kind atheist over a malevolent one.
Thats it, keep raising those flags.
It doesn't matter what I think, or the next person thinks. It doesn't matter whether the next person thinks your a good person, or even if I think your a good person here on earth.
The important thing is still what does God think.
And withoout Jesus, it does not matter if your a "good atheist" or an "evil" one.
Your both equal in God's eyes.
And your both equally condemned.
But ask me how to escape this condemnation.
God Bless
Till all are one.
It's unfortunate that I can't give you reps at the moment for this. But I appreciate your "straight to the point" approach here. All atheists and theistic non-Christians are going to hell. What does it matter whether who is better or worse (except that the "better" non-Christians at least cause less suffering to Christ's church)?
Yet God loves these people and sent his Son Jesus to die for all of us. Therefore I exhort all non-Christians to repent of their non-Christian religions and confess Jesus as the Christ.
Personally I also just don't get how you can believe in this kind of god. It feels so evil and harsh, unbalanced. I don't get the point of Jesus either. I respect him, but his supposed sacrifice seems a bit unnecessary. Couldn't God just forgive us?
Personally I also just don't get how you can believe in this kind of god. It feels so evil and harsh, unbalanced. I don't get the point of Jesus either. I respect him, but his supposed sacrifice seems a bit unnecessary. Couldn't God just forgive us?
I don't think I'm much more of a sinner that any of you. For example, I think it's safe to say that everyone in this forum have way to many belongings and don't share as much as they could with the poor. I agree, that on minor sins like this, it's impossible for humans to jugde what weighs the most, who's worse and who's better. And it's impossible for us to grasp the all over effects of our seemingly quite innocent sins.
And therefor we will always end up doing bad things, whether we want it or not,or feel responsible. Some times people do bad things because they are scared, or they try to save themselves from embaressment. They will often regret it regardless whether the're christians or not. So why should christians get the free lift?
I don't try to justify myself, I don't even think I want to go to heaven, I'd rather stay forever hereBut I don't understand why God can look through your sins, just because you believe in Jesus? Something many people find impossible to do. I call your god cruel when he rejects their wholehearted attemts to do good!
With respect, but this is the fundamental misunderstanding of humanity about God. What you have done here is compared human against human, which human is better than the other, but we are all sinners in the eyes of God. Humans are not the standard of comparison but Jesus Christ. Compare yourself to Him and see if you fall short, the truth is that you do, just as we all do.
You cannot save yourself from sin, and sin is what separates you from God. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can restore you to God and bring His forgiveness. You cannot achieve salvation or righteousness through your own works, you can't earn forgiveness which is what you are proposing through "wholehearted attempts to do good" because the problem is the human heart! When you receive God's forgiveness He circumcises your heart, you are born again, it is like a re-birth unto God. It is spiritual not a human striving.
It makes no sense. There are people in this world that haven't even heard of Jesus yet (althoufh not many). Even so, there are so many social and cultural reasons to "reject" Jesus. It's probably a thosand times harder for a Chinese to believe in Jesus than it is for a child born into a Christian family.
Also 2ooo years might not be such a long time for devine being, but for man, who seldom reach a hundred, Jesus just becomes a questionable fairytale. Few have seen his spirit, if any. I have not, and five billion other humans haven't either, apparently...
So, if it's all true, He could have forgiven us on the basis that we're all confused and mentally blocked.
He could have made a grand display like he used to, clear up the confusion for all to see and record digitally. He could teach us better, and encurage us to do good, instead of punishing us for trying. I haven't chosen to "reject" Jesus...
I don't think I'm much more of a sinner that any of you. For example, I think it's safe to say that everyone in this forum have way to many belongings and don't share as much as they could with the poor. I agree, that on minor sins like this, it's impossible for humans to jugde what weighs the most, who's worse and who's better. And it's impossible for us to grasp the all over effects of our seemingly quite innocent sins.
And therefor we will always end up doing bad things, whether we want it or not,or feel responsible. Some times people do bad things because they are scared, or they try to save themselves from embaressment. They will often regret it regardless whether the're christians or not. So why should christians get the free lift?
I don't try to justify myself, I don't even think I want to go to heaven, I'd rather stay forever hereBut I don't understand why God can look through your sins, just because you believe in Jesus? Something many people find impossible to do. I call your god cruel when he rejects their wholehearted attemts to do good!
Also now I don't understand either, why it is our heart that is the problem.
With respect, but that is not exactly what I did.. I also said that I agree we cannot judge who's better and who's worse, but that is not the point for me. The point is, that someone probably is better than others, more loving of both fellow man and of God, whatever he is called, and it is said that He judges us. And if Jesus indeed is a deity, which I find very hard to believe, then of corse we would all fall short, and it's not fair to compare us to him.
And if both christians and the rest of us are all sinners in the eyes of God non the less, I don't get what difference it makes whether we believe in Jesus or not, and why he was needed in that way. Shouldn't the spiritual link be between God and each individual?
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi. Copyright 1964, Vol. IV, The Law in the Old Testament, 1. The Law in Ancient Israel, nomos, p. 1036The nature of the Law is in keeping with this in that:
- Its demand is unconditional. This may be seen in the style of the series of laws, in their harsh severity, in their uncompromising formulation hich weighs the act as such and not the background or special circumstances.
- The form of the commands (or prohibitions) is negitive. Here is fresh confirmation that the theological setting of this Law is the covenant of Election. For there is not commanded what establishes the relation to Yahweh, but prohibited what destroyed it.
Reconcile: to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions
Also now I don't understand either, why it is our heart that is the problem. He supposedly gave us our hearts.
And in ancient times, he supposedly communicated very directly with us. Is the salvation through Jesus, like a service pack for our hearts? Have christian hearts become better? (Oh darn, I did it again, I just can't stop with comparisons, sorry)
I want to thank you for your patience with me though. I'm not trying to be annoying, but I'm struggling a bit with taking christanity seriously
And I also find your call for uniformity a bit alarming, since I don't want a powerful Church like in the past, because it's so easily corrupted...
Also in the defence of atheists who we are supposed to be discussing, (I think I'm more an agnostic): to say that the universe have always excisted or just appeared, isn't so much different from saying a god created it. Because it's always the question how that god, that tremendous force of intelligence, came to be. But again I don't think true atheists believe the universe came from nothing, they just don't believe in the Bible's explination..
A large class of theologians and philosophers deny that the existence of God is susceptible of proof. This is done on different grounds. First. It is said that the knowledge of God being intuitive, it is not a proper subject of proof. This is the position taken by that class of theologians who resolve all religion into feeling, and by the modern school of speculative philosophers, who make such a wide distinction between the reason and the understanding; the former being the intuitional, and the latter the discursive faculty. Eternal and necessary truths belong to the province of the reason; subordinate truths to the sphere of the understanding. It is the understanding that argues and concludes. The reason apprehends by immediate vision. What relates to God, as the eternal, infinite, necessary Being, belongs to the province of reason, and not to that of the understanding. Even such theistic writers as Twesten say that the good need no proof that God is, and that the wicked are not susceptible of conviction. You cannot prove that a thing is beautiful, or that it is good. So neither can you prove that there is a God. The fallacy of this statement is obvious. Beauty and goodness are qualities which must be discerned by the mind, just as the objects of sight are discerned by the eye. As it is true that you cannot prove to a blind man that an object is red, so you cannot prove to a peasant that the “Paradise Lost” is sublime. But the existence of God is an objective fact. It may be shown that it is a fact which cannot be rationally denied. Although all men have feelings and convictions which necessitate the assumption that there is a God; it is, nevertheless, perfectly legitimate to show that there are other facts which necessarily lead to the same conclusion.
Besides, it is to be remembered that theistical arguments are designed to prove not only that there is a necessity for the assumption of all extra-mundane and eternal Being, but mainly, to show what that Being is; that He is a personal Being, self-conscious, intelligent, moral. All this may lie inclosed in the primary intuition, but it needs to be brought out and established.
Secondly. Another class of objections against all theistical arguments, relates to the arguments themselves. They are pronounced fallacious, as involving a petitio principii; or declared to be invalid as derived from false premises; or heading to conclusions other than that intended to be established. Of this every man must judge for himself. They have been regarded as sound and conclusive by the wisest men, from Socrates to the present day. Of course the argument on the principle of causation must be invalid to those who deny that there is any such thing as an efficient cause; and the argument from design can have no force for those who deny the possibility of final causes.
Most of the objections to the conclusiveness of the arguments in question arises from a misapprehension of what they are intended to prove. It is often assumed that each argument must prove the whole doctrine of Theism; whereas one argument may prove one element of that doctrine; and other arguments different elements. The cosmological argument may prove the existence of a necessary and eternal Being; the teleological argument, that that Being is intelligent; the moral argument that He is a possessing moral attributes. The arguments are not designed so much to prove the existence of an unknown being, as to demonstrate that the Being who reveals himself to man in the very constitution of his nature must be all that Theism declares him to be. Such writers as Hume, Kant, Coleridge, and the whole school of transcendental philosophers, have more or less expressly denied the validity of the ordinary arguments for the existence of a personal God.
“Ex nihilo nihil fit” – nothing cannot produce something.
(things) cannot come to pass in and of themselves – to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect.
The solar system clearly has not been thrown together by chance. The precision with which the solar system is designed is far greater than anything man has ever manufactured.
Consider that many stars, perhaps most stars, vary in their energy output much more than does our star - the sun. Our sun varies in its energy output by less than one-tenth of one percent. Life would be impossible on a planet orbiting many, if not most, other stars. In addition, our distance from the sun is very precisely set to favor life on Earth.
Even the size and position of the Earth's moon support Genesis. Genesis records that God made two great lights, one with the purpose of ruling over the day, and one with the purpose of ruling over the night. The apparent size of these bodies from Earth is clearly an important factor in this position of rulership. Yet they appear to be the same size, even though the sun is almost exactly 400 times larger than the moon. This is because the moon is almost exactly 400 times closer than the sun. This precise relationship means that the Earth may be the only place in the universe where one can see a total eclipse of a star like the sun.
Taking the bang out of creation.
Recent months have seen more excited claims that the Big Bang theory has been salvaged. These claims and the press that follows them are designed to breathe life into a theory that is suffering from a terminal case of contrary evidence.
Scientists thought that they heard a heartbeat in the corpse when astrophysicists claimed to have measured a 0.00001 degree difference in temperatures 14 billion light years away.
The first problem with these claims is that the "discovery" has not been confirmed. Normally, scientists remain skeptical of new discoveries until all the work has been checked and others have made the same observations. That these so-called "ripples" from the Big Bang itself were enthusiastically embraced as fact before the normal process was completed illustrates that the Big Bang theory rests more on faith than on science.
Astrophysicist Halton Arp has discovered several objects in space that violate basic assumptions of the Big Bang. That didn't win Arp any friends. In a letter published in Science News (July 27,1991.), Arp challenges claims that the expanding universe is "very well verified observationally," and "the evidence taken together … hangs together beautifully." Such claims are found in every textbook and news release prepared for public consumption about the Big Bang.
Arp says that these claims "overlook observational facts that have been piling up for 25 years and that have now become overwhelming." Arp is no creationist, though. He is proposing a "general theory of continuous creation." Continuous creation, according to Arp, takes place in "mini-bangs" within a non-expanding universe.
Arp seems to feel that the Big Bang orthodoxy knows that its theory is dead. He wrote, "There are now five or six whole classes of objects that violate this basic assumption [of the Big Bang]. It really gives away the game to realize how observations of these crucial objects have been banned from the [Hubble] telescope and how their discussion has met with desperate attempts at suppression."
Arp's letter confirms a prediction made in BSN in October of 1990. In that editorial we predicted, "You can be sure that astronomers like Halton Arp (who is not a creationist), will never be granted time on the Hubble for researching his theories which question the idea of an expanding universe."
All this fighting among evolutionary astronomers shows us that the "obvious scientific facts" used to support this branch of evolution are not really as "factual" as they would like us to believe.
The origin of the moon
Scientists have debated for years about the origin of the moon. Its size, in relation to the Earth, makes it a most unusual satellite. No other known planet has a moon that is so large in comparison to the planet. Just as the Earth seems to be special, compared to other known bodies in space, so our moon seems to be quite unique, too.
The Bible says that the moon was made separately from the earth, less than ten thousand years ago. We can begin to predict some scientific findings about the moon from what the Bible tells us. For example, the Bible's account does not limit the expected composition of the moon. It need not be the same as the Earth's. In fact, creationists could argue that the moon might have a different composition since it was created for a different purpose than the Earth.
Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the moon. One theory says that the moon condensed out of the same space dust and gases as the Earth during the solar system's formation. The primary problem with this theory is that it predicts that the Earth and the moon should then have a similar composition. Analysis of moon material has shown that the Earth and the moon are quite different in composition.
Even if all the gases and water long ago escaped the moon, we could tell whether they were once there. Latest analysis shows that lunar samples have never known any water or free oxygen. This is significant because the Earth was formed out of the waters. The moon, a separate creation on another day, was formed in place, having nothing to do with water, according to the Bible. Three minerals that do not occur on Earth have been found in moon samples. Chemical elements in the lunar material also show a higher proportion of those metallic elements that melt at higher temperatures than the Earth.
This rules out the idea that the moon condensed from the same material as did the Earth. It also rules out the theory that the moon was, at one time, part of the Earth that was pulled from the Earth in some sort of cataclysmic event. Creationist-science has had no need to limit our expected chemical analysis of the moon. However, both of these long-age theories for the origin of the moon are ruled out by what has been learned. It appears that the moon was formed in place, not on the Earth, which is exactly the result we expect from the Genesis description.
If the moon had a magnetic field at one time, it would have been subject to the same decay as the Earth's. While the creation-believing scientists see decay of the Earth's magnetic field as irreversible from the beginning, the evolutionist sees such decay as a reversing, recharging process. If the moon once had a magnetic field, the creationist would expect it to have very little or none left, due to its smaller size and mass.
The moon has no detectable magnetic field today. Interestingly, however, it has revealed preserved evidence that it once had a magnetic field. One evolutionary writer called this "baffling and unexpected." While creationists did not expect to find remnant magnetism on the moon, we have long talked about magnetic fields decaying to nothingness, based on our study of the Earth's decaying magnetic field.
Creationists maintain that the Earth was given its magnetic field at its creation. The rate of decay in the Earth's magnetic field is so rapid that it has been measured. These measurements show that ten thousand years ago the Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that life on Earth would have been impossible. In other words, the Earth is young.
Evolutionists have admitted that the measurements are accurate. However, they claim that after a period of disintegration, the Earth's magnetic field reverses, and is reestablished with renewed strength. Findings on the moon illustrate that magnetic fields can wear down to nothing. The moon is an illustration of where there was no reversal or recharging. There is no reason to believe that the earth is any different.
The rings of Saturn
Scientists have puzzled over the origin of Saturn's rings. Though Saturn's rings are unique, we have learned that all the giant outer planets have ring systems. One traditional method of explaining the rings has called upon a combination of the near-collision theory, along with the mathematics of Roche's Limit. Roche's Limit is a mathematical principle. It says that when a body comes within a certain distance of a larger body, it will break up into ever smaller pieces. Evolutionists have said that there was a near collision of some large body with Saturn. However, the mass difference between Saturn and the unknown body was too great. So when the body came within Roche's Limit, natural forces took over, and through the ages this body was reduced to a ring of dust around the planet. This is, of course, a simplification but presents the facts essential to our argument at this point.
Dr. Harold Slusher of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed out that the evolutionists' theory is essentially correct, except for one minor detail. When Roche proposed his formula, he had in mind a body composed of a gas or a liquid. He was not thinking of a solid body, as are today's evolutionists. The formula does not work with a solid body, and yet the rings are made not of gaseous or liquid material, but solid. So, says Dr. Slusher, we can rule out the disintegration of another body as the explanation of the rings of Saturn.
The other model, proposed by evolutionists to explain the formation of Saturn's rings, suggests that the rings are left over from the formation of the planet. Dr. Harold Jeffreys, a British Geophysicist, wrote that, assuming the rings are leftover from the planet's formation, the rings of Saturn should be completely stabilized within one million years of the formation of the planet. Dr. Slusher has pointed out that the rings are not stabilized, and thus we have evidence that the solar-system is indeed young.
Voyagers I and II
The Voyager spacecraft revealed that the ring-system of Saturn is very complex. Voyager II showed, for the first time, that Saturn has literally hundreds of distinct rings, with sharp divisions. If the solar system is a couple of billion years old, these sharp divisions should have become bluffed. The very existence of these sharp divisions argues for a young solar system.
Even more amazing is the "F" ring of Saturn. This narrow, well-defined ring system was described from the Voyager One photos as having knots. This was amazing enough. Then Voyager Two showed that these rings were actually intertwined and braided. They are not at all stable! Scientists have suggested that the presence of nearby "shepherding" satellites may be the cause of this instability. Even if those satellites have been there for only a short (on the evolutionists' time scale) million years, the relationship between those satellites and the rings should have stabilized. Evolutionists refer to the issue as an open question.
Star clusters
Evolutionists claim that space is full of the proofs for a young universe. Is it? Let's look first at star clusters. These are groupings of stars that are all connected by gravitational forces. The Big Bang theory says that since they are connected by gravitational forces, they were formed about the same time, by the same forces. Is this what we really find?
Astronomers divide stars into various groupings, according to what type they seem to be. For example, type 0 and type B stars are considered very young stars, by the evolutionists' figuring. Type G stars are very old. Dr. Harold Slusher is a creationist who has scientific credentials in astrophysics, geophysics, and astronomy. He points out that there are star clusters with type 0 and B (young) stars, as well as type G (old) stars all gravitationally connected to one another. The big bang theory cannot have this sort of arrangement, yet it is there. Dr. Slusher reports that evolutionists have thought up all sorts of fantastic schemes to explain this. Ultimately they call it an enigma.
We have an even more amazing (for the evolutionist) state of affairs in Trapezium, in the Orion nebula. These four stars are moving away from a common point in space at high speed. If you take their current speeds and compute backwards, you will find them at a common starting point only about 10,000 years ago. This means that they can't be older than 10,000 years.
The conclusion that one is left with is that the classification system commonly used for stars is inaccurate because it is based on the evolutionary need for a great age for the universe. The more direct evidence indicates that the classification system is in error. The stars that are supposed to be ancient, when tested against other evidence, are, in fact, young. This state of affairs poses no problem for creationists.
Dr. Wernher von Braun concludes
Today we often hear that should creationist science win the day, man's learning, progress and betterment would be forever set back. One can think of few Twentieth century scientists who have done more to move man into new scientific frontiers than Dr. Wernher von Braun. Dr. Wernher von Braun is considered one of the 20th century's greatest scientists. After pioneering work in rocketry, Dr. von Braun developed the Saturn V rocket that successfully powered the first manned moon landing.
In 1972 this great scientist was asked to comment on the case for design as a scientific theory for the origin of the universe. He wrote:
"For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose.... While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.... Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer.... But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?"
The incomprehensible size of the universe is woven of immeasurable power. Yet it is arranged on meticulous precision to support life in Earth. Truly these facts form a shining beam from the Creator that dwarfs the sun itself!
The African impala can jump to a height of over 10 feet and cover a distance of greater than 30 feet. Yet these magnificent creatures can be kept in an enclosure in any zoo with a 3-foot wall. The animals will not jump if they cannot see where their feet will fall. Faith is the ability to trust what we cannot see, and with faith we are freed from the flimsy enclosures of life that only fear allows to entrap us.
Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of faith is to see what we believe.
Hello Kreaturen. Your questions are fairly common ones in American culture, so I'm going to try and address all of them.
Actually there are quite a few people around the world who haven't heard of Jesus yet, and it's something that the church is well aware of. We are also well aware of the fact that there is no short supply of social and cultural reasons to reject the Son of God. There are many Chinese Christians at my local church, and to become a Christian bans a Chinese person from ever becoming a member of the communist party in China. Jews will find it difficult to believe in Jesus because it causes them to become social outcasts among their fellow Jews. Muslims in Arab nations can even be beheaded for professing faith in Christ. I myself was raised Hindu, and had to reject many family religious practices in order to become a Christian.
Now as far as I can tell, you are an average American or Western European who grew up in a cultural of nominal, liberal Christianity (which, incidentally, is worthless with respect to salvation). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I make this assumption because you haven't said otherwise, and it's statistically a liklihood. If I am right, then you could commit your life to Christ at any time, find a church with a community of believers down the road, and face nothing more than a little ridicule from your friends and family. Some of us don't have that luxury. Now put yourself in my position. Would you expect me to have the slightest degree of sympathy for the average Amerian who grew up in a culture that tolerates the Gospel, had every opportunity to repent, but chose instead to blaspheme the Son of God and follow after some other religion? How much less will God, who gave you a lifetime in which to repent, have no remaining mercy for you when you wake up one day in hell because you didn't receive the grace he offered you through his Son Jesus?
You cite people from non-Christian cultures or families to prove that you can get out of hell without believing in Jesus. But you're asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be asking how people who have never heard the Gospel will be saved. You should be asking how you, who have had every opportunity to repent of your sins and believe in the Gospel, will be saved when you have neglected the greatest gift that God ever offered humanity.
The Bible is an accurate historical record of the life of Jesus, just as many ancient historical figures were accurately portrayed by contemporary distinctions. The distinction between "religious" and "secular" writings is purely artificial, since all historical authors have had their own biases.
As a sidenote, it's very important to add that Jesus is not a spirit. He is the incarnate God, and therefore a human being.
Would you suggest forgiving murderers/thieves/Hitler (or insert other generic bad person of your choice) on the basis of that defense? Sin is a heinous offense to God and does not give him the respect that he deserves, yet we all do it anyway. Such a thing can only be forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ.
You aren't the first person to say this. Jesus told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man treasured his wealth and didn't give to the poor. Lazarus begged on the street. Lazarus went to heaven, and the rich man went to hell. In hell he asked Abraham (the father of the Israelites) to send Lazarus to warn his living brothers to repent of their sins before they died. Abraham's response:But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:29-31)You ask for miracles, but you have the Bible, which is superior to any other miraculous sign. The Jews and the Romans knew that Jesus had rose from the dead, and they did not repent, but instead bribed the Roman guards to say that the disciples had stolen his body. The Bible records the Pharisees' response to Jesus' miraculous works:
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:47-48)Even if God made a "grand display" for you, this would not necessarily induce repentance.
Unless you've killed anyone recently, it's probably a safe bet that you're not a worse sinner than anyone on this forum, including me. Maybe I'm even worse of a sinner than you. But I'm going to eternal life and you're going to eternal hell. Unfair, you say? I have nothing that I did not receive from God, and he offers the same gift of eternal life to you. All you must do is repent of your sins (including false religion, if you have one), believe in Jesus, and live your life to the Lord. You don't need to do any specific deed, pay any money, or practice any ritual to receive salvation through Jesus Christ. So you cannot say that God is treating you unfairly. If anything he has favored you. As you yourself admit, you have ready access to the Gospel while millions around the world die in their sins having never heard of Jesus Christ.
I call your no god cruel for giving humans a finite lifespan. You can't stay here forever, and your soul was made to last for eternity. Where you spend it depends on whether you repent towards God and place your trust in Jesus Christ. The reason you see salvation through Christ as absurd is probably because you regard belief as mere intellectual assent. Perhaps you aren't aware that belief in Jesus involves a lifetime of repentance and sanctification. I don't ultimately know why you regard this doctrine as absurd, but I think I've made an educated guess, and you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You cannot say that you find it impossible to believe in Jesus. Ultimately belief is a matter of the will rather than the reason. But remember this: you will most assuredly perish in hell if you reject Jesus Christ, and I am warning you of this now in the hopes that you will receive him as your God and believe in the Gospel.
Perhaps its not right to compare sinners to Christ, but it altogether proper for us to compare ourselves to the Lord.
Do you know what the word "Christian" means? It means "little Christs." When we take on the title of "Christian," our message to the world is that we are "little Christs."
From the moment of salvation, we are placed "in Christ." We are dressed in His righteousness. And we are to strive to conform our lives to his will and image. However, as long as we are in the flesh, we will fall short of this goal. But in the end, it will happen.
This is a both/and, either/or type of answer.
As far as this goes, there are some deep theological issues which you should understand.
Lets address this question: "Why He was needed in that way".
God created man, and in the first amount of time, man had only one rule/law to obey. Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Man broke the rule/law. As a result, paradise was lost and sin entered the world.
For the next thousand years or so, God tried covenants with the people, and judgements. Neither worked.
Then arose Moses. God decided that enough was enough. God gave the people 613 Laws to live by. These laws regulated every facet of life.
But by doing so, God set the bar to high for man to fulfill. And, in a round about way, the law had its faults even though it is described as:
"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." -Rom. 7:12 (KJV)
Even though it was all this, it was also:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." -Heb. 8:7 (KJV)
The law, even though good, had a flaw in that it addressed the act and not the intent. For example; the 10 Commandments make it a sin to commit adultry. However, we know from Jesus' teaching that looking at a member of the opposite sex with "lust" was the same as adultry.
In those days, a man or woman could look at each other and desire, or lust for somebody, but because they hadn't actually committed the deed, then they thought they were not gulity.
And Jesus corrected that line of thought.
Also, under the OT laws:
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi. Copyright 1964, Vol. IV, The Law in the Old Testament, 1. The Law in Ancient Israel, nomos, p. 1036
How here, it really starts to get deep.
A sin is described as transgression, a transgression of God's commands. Any trasngresion demanded satisfaction. And satisfaction was through sacrifice. And here is why Christ's sacrifice is better than that of the "Laws".
The OT type of sacrifice could only "cover" ones sin. Each sin required a sacrifice. One sin = one sacrifice. In Christ, all our sins are atoned for.
Also, the sacrifice of the OT could not reconcile them back to God.
Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary.
However, we are told that one of the works Christ did was to reconcile us, and the world, back to God:
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" -2 Cor. 5:19 (KJV)
Christ redeemed us from the Law and sin. And Christ reconciled us back to God. Where we once:
"being alienated from the life of God" -Eph. 4:18 (KJV)
And:
"were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" -Col. 1:21 (KJV)
All that the "Law" required of mankind, we could not do. That is why Jesus was manifested for us, to fulfill the "Law". And, that is why it is so important to believe in Christ.
Beginning in Genesis 6, before the flood, we read:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." -Gen. 6:5 (KJV)
After the flood, we read:
"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" -Gen. 8:21 (KJV)
In Jeremiah we read:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9 (KJV)
In the Gospels, we hear Jesus teaching:
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:" -Mt. 15:18-20 (KJV)
All sin, everything that alienates us from God, proceeds from the heart. That is why we are in need of new one and why one is given to us at salvation:
"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." -Psa. 51:10 (KJV)
Who is to say that God didn't use the "Big Bang" theory to bring about the creation of the universe?
Were you there? Were scientists there?
Bring forth the eyewitnesses!
Christianity is all about faith. The Bible tells us God created the universe. It does not tell us how He brought it into being, only that He created it. And I take it on faith that He did.
Its really that simple.
And the issue of faith, is what it is all about in the eternal.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part II, Theology Proper, Chapter I, Origin of the idea of God, Section 4, Can the existance of God be proved? p. 202-203
Arthur W. Pink said:
If nothing, absolute nothing as in the case of the "big bang" theory is true, then nothing produced something.
Arthur W. Pink also said:
Before the universe was created, there was nothing, then "Bang!"
Well, our Bible tells us that before there was a universe there was God. And when this universe ceases to exist, there will be God.
We have argued from scriptures about the existance of God, but most atheists refer to the Bible as a book of mythology and is not reliable proof.
However, if you take the Bible away from us, you have cripled us. Likewise, if we don't accept what you gleen from science, and we take that away from you, you don't have a leg to stand on.
But I can do something with my Bible, I can take you to a mountain in Turkey where the ark that Noah built, lies. (Just like the Bible says)
For years and years it was thought that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were fairie tales because there was no evidence to sustain it. But I can take to a dig in Israel where clay tablets have been unearthed that tell of two merchant cities named "Sodom" and "Gomorrah". (Just like the Bible says)
I can take you to the Red Sea and show you chariot wheels that lie at the bottom of that sea where they could not possibly be. (Just like the Bible says)
For years and years, the existance of a certain people called the "Hittites" were disputed because of a lack of evidence. However, I can take you to a museum in Syria where evidence unearthed show the existance of the "Hittites". (Just like the Bible says)
I can take to a certain temple remnants in Jerusalem that have been in their original resting place since a temple was built by Solomon. (Just like the Bible says)
I can take you to a road in Israel that bears the name of a certain Roman Govenor who condemned a man named Jesus to His death. (Just like the Bible says)
I can take you to the remnants of 7 churches that are mentioned by name in the book of Revelation. (Just like the Bible says)
I don't need proof, the Bible is able to prove itself.
Continued...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?