It doesn't matter if I call God "God" or "Allah" or "YHWH" - the intent is the same. Jesus knows when I'm talking to him regardless of what name I use.
Surely it's an important matter, since the name you use indicates what you believe about his dientity? If you call God 'Allah' then you're saying 'Islam is true, Jesus was only a prophet, therefore I'm not talking to the God of the Bible.' Names can be important things.
You do realize that "Christ" is the Greek transliteration of "God's anointed one", and that there is another Christ explicitly mentioned in the bible. It doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is a deity if they are a "Christ". In Isaiah 45:1, Cyrus the King of Persia (now called "Iran") is explicitly referred to as "God's anointed one".
There are quite a few anointed people in the Bible. Kings and prophets were all anointed and people that God used could be called anointed without physically having oil poured on their heads. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins, called himself YHWH and said he was the son of God.
You should also know that "Jesus" wasn't his real name. It was "Yeshua", which we say in English "Joshua". Do a little home work. The Greeks lack a "Y" sound. Just listen to them say "Yesterday". There are a few other reasons, but it isn't hard to see how his name was really "Yeshua" and though many Christians now incorrectly say "Jesus".
That's fairly well known, particularly by Bible translators. Jesus is a perfectly acceptable alternative translation of Yeshua and at the end of the day, it has zero effect of the authenticity or message of the Bible.
My point is that you study something that has become corrupted over the year due to numerous translations.
You seem to misunderstand the translation process. They don't take a piece of text, translate it into one language, then take that piece and translate it, etc. Translations are made from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available. Over time, our translations have improved as material closer to the originals has become available. Modern OTs for instance are better translations than the one in the KJV because they use older Hebrew manuscripts, rather than the Septuagint, which was Greek translation of the OT.
The fact that you claim that believing that Jesus is a deity is required to get into heaven is simply due to your literal interpretation of corrupted data.
If it was corrupt, you would expect contradictory claims about yet, yet the entirety of the NT consistently states this as a requirement. How do you explain that? Do you think that thousands of Biblical scholars, with the most reliable early texts, somehow all got it wrong?
It is well known that the bible is simply a collection of books put together by the Counsel of Nicaea in 325AD.
Actually, I imagine that well over 50% of the population hasn't a clue how the Bible was put together and of the remainder, a big chunk of them merely think they know.
They chose only the books which agreed with their interpretation of what christianity should be.
Actually, it's the other way round. The council merely confirmed a canon that was already in common usage. They didn't sit down and think 'Let's decide what books to put in the Bible.' They sat down and thought 'Everyone is using these books, so let's make them the official canon, since they already are in effect. What they believed was informed by the books that went into the Bible because they were what the church was already using.
It's interesting that out of all the gospels written, and there were many, they only choose 4 that were written by people who weren't even alive when Jesus walked the earth
Actually, they chose the 4 most reliable. The 4 in the Bible are consistent with one another, are closer to the original events in terms of sources and time than the other gospels and were written by trustworthy people. The apocryphal gospels were contradictory, written well after the death of any eye-witnesses and were not attributable to reputable sources. That's why they weren't used by the church.
Mark was a companion of Peter, the Apostle. Luke was written by Doctor Luke, the companion of Paul and was written with a view to presenting the truth, as testified to by eye-witnesses, as Luke says in the first few verses. Matthew was written by the Apostle, as was John most likely. So actually, they're all written by people who either directly witnessed events, or got their information from people who directly witnessed them. They were all certainly alive when Jesus walked the earth.
It's quite interesting comparing the historicity of the Bible with other great historical documents. While the earliest copies of the epistles and gospels date within the first and second centuries AD, within a handful a few decades of when the originals were written, and within a century of Christ's death and resurrection, other historical texts, which are accepted without question, generally date to hundreds of years after the originals were made, which may themselves date from a considerable time after events they describe.
What do you think of his first and most frequent teaching was 'repent and believe.' The centre of his philosophy was that mankind needed to be reconciled to God by his death and resurrection and by people repenting.
The battery life will be largely dependent on the rate of hard drive access. Lower bit rate files will allow longer sequences to be stored in RAM, reducing the rate of access, increasing battery life. Won't be a linear effect though, because you're still using power playing the music, keeping the clock going (wish you could turn this off so the iPod doesn't discharge while unplugged and not running!), displaying stuff on screen. Since Apple makes its battery claims using 160 kbps files, you should see a slight improvement with 128.
I did A-levels in 2000/01 and I"m pretty sure graphic calculators weren't allowed. Same for GCSEs in 98/99. I'm not sure how strict on enforcing the regs most schools were. I was always quite happy with my faithful little Casio fx-115, which has now gone AWOL.
Right now most math and science students are given or required to own a graphic calculator.
Here in the UK, they're forbidden in exams (up to and including university level) and frowned upon as a distraction and hindrance to being able to visual graphs yourself.
Most people do an MPhys at Oxford, but there is a 3 year BA course for those that aren't quite good enough for the MPhys or, like me, decide that Physics is not want they want to pursue longer term.
I might not be a Christian by your definition. I don't much care. I don't much care. I am an active and vital member of my congregation. I love God, and I love Jesus. I don't think you or anybody else on this planet is wise enough to define for me what my faith should be.
It's Jesus' definition, which surely is the one we should be taking?
So, you're entitled to your opinion. And I vehemently disagree with you. I don't believe you have the monopoloy on what it means to follow Jesus. I also don't think that the Bible has the final say on the subject.
Where, outside of the Bible, do you intend to get a record of what Jesus said and did? If you're not going to follow what Christ said there, then you've no basis for your idea of him, other than yourself, and can't possibly call yourself a follower of him.
You are a dogmatic Christian. You think you know the Truth. You do not. Neither do I. However, I am wise enough to realize this.
It's not a question of my wisdom; it's a question of trusting God's revelation in the Bible. God explicitly says who he is, how we get saved and proved it by raising Jesus from the dead. It is his wisdom you are questionning, not mine.
What does this sentence mean?
It should have read: Trying to follow our own moral code gets us nowhere
The act of faith, in itself, is a work. That is why "salvation through faith", while hugely popular, is in itself heretical. It's just a bolted-on idea with little Biblical basis.
I suggest you read Romans 1:17. It is but one of many, many, many verses that clearly expound salvation by faith.
The only problem is that divinity is relative and it's defined by man. Jesus is said to have been divine, but there's no real evidence, except for hearsay many decades after the fact, of his miracles. He is defined as divine.
How about all those miracles he did, the most significant of which was raising himself from the dead? If he didn't rise from the dead, don't you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have jumped at the chance to put down the upstart religion by revealing his body? Why did his disciples die in excruciating pain for the sake of the gospel, if it was a lie?
Personally, as the agnostic deist that I am, I believe that Jesus was just a moral man who was a good leader. Divine? No more than anyone else I kno
He claimed to be God, to have the ability to forgive sins, to heal people. His central message was that we needed to ask God for forgiveness and worship him. If you believe him to be moral and a good teacher, why aren't you following these teachings?
When it comes to good and evil, they should be defined through logical arguments, not "God says so." I'm not sure I could agree with the Old testament God on most of this stuff. He seemed pretty willing to kill people on whim just to show his power or give power to one of his chosen to let them kill people.
It can be shown logicaly. If God is completely glorious, completely deserving of worship, then it is the worse crime imaginable to refuse to do that. The claim of Christianity is that God is totally deserving of worship and we stand condemned for not giving the whole of our lives to him. However, in his mercy he offers to punish his son instead and forgive us. And at the end of the day, if God is God, whose moral code is going to matter more, yours or his?
More or less there were a heck of a lot of exceptions to that pesky "Thou shalt not kill" rule. Maybe it should be considered more of a guideline.
There was no such commandment. It was 'Do not murder,' which is quite different. Humans have no right to murder other humans. God has the right to strike men down as punishment for their sins because he is perfect and deserves to be worshipped. If we don't, then we should be punished. It isn't unfair that God judged people on the spot on occasion in the Old Testament. It's not unfair that he sends to Hell those who don't put their trust in his son. It's merciful that any are saved at all, because none of us deserve it.
The assumption here being that God acts in a moral fashion. Why assume that?
Because God created the universe and rules over it, so he gets to define what morality is. Also, if he is in control, whose idea of morality will ultimately matter, but his? Oh and why do you assume that morality set out by society is good? Do you believe in absolute good or absolute evil? If something is wrong for society today, is it perfectly alright for it to be wrong tomorrow?
Actually, none of them is claiming to be the only one, it is their followers doing so. Same goes for the racket about the head believers.
Actually, Jesus explicitly said that the only way to the Father was through him and that he alone was the truth (John 314:6). He made it very clear that our salvation was dependent on placing our faith in his death in our place and resurrection, saying sorry for turning away from him and confessing him as Lord (i.e. that there are no other ways).
And if you really think about it, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God is all one and the same. The difference is in accepting the timeline of who came along and gave updated instructions.
The Jews don't accept that Jesus who he said he was. The Christians don't believe Mohammed was who he said he was. A bunch of people don't accept any of them.
So the difference is in a bunch of groups saying they have the latest instructions from the same guy and that all previous instructions are null and void. Effectively a spiritual 'do over'.
Fundamentally though, it's all the same God. (Once you go outside of those three then you're into a different ball-game as I understand.)
Actualy, that's pretty inaccurate. Jesus said that he came to fulfil the law, not to abolish it. Christianity is fairly clear on the Old Testament scriptures being correct and pointing towards Jesus' coming and dying on the cross to atone for our sins. The holy scriptures of Judaism point very much towards Christianity, it's just that a lot of Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The problem with Islam is that it claims Jesus was a prophet, not God (whihc you have to admit is a pretty major difference), that salvation comes through good works, rather than faith (again, massive difference since salvation by works is shown to be impossible and the pursuit of it leading to condemnation in Judaism and Christianity) and that God is a distant figure, in complete contrast to the loving father figure we are told we can all 'Abba' in the Bible. Basically, Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism and does not abolish it, while Islam completely contradicts them both.
Generally I agree though -- really trying to be a better person is better than believing that I can be an a**hole and God will let it slide as long as I have enough faith that he will.
The Bible makes it fairly clear that once saved by faith, there should be a change in our lives. It is not a license to go on sinning. On the contrary. if you continue to wilfully sin after claiming to be saved, it saves that you're still actually unsaved. The great thing is, however, that no matter how bad you've been, you can still be fogiven. It's just that once forgiven, your live will change. God has made it fairly clear that simply trying to be good enough will never save us because the root problem is that we turned away from him and have tried to take his place. Only turning, saying sorry and asking him to be Lord over our lives will change that.
'm not a Christian because I'm soft-headed. I'm a Christian because, in my cost-benefit analysis, I come out ahead.
From the sounds of things, I don't think you're a Christian at all. Jesus made it fairly clear that he was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). You can't pick and mix between religions and don't need to - Jesus offers everything. Christianity holds it central that we do need saved because we've all rejected God and need forgiven by him and that that happens by having faith in him, rather than earning your way to heaven. Trying to follow our own oral code gets us anywhere. If you really are interested in Christianity, then you should read one of the gospels or the book of Romans to see what it's really about. If you disagree with what I've just said, then you're disagreeing with Christianity and there's no point in trying to take any of its points. Everything in it points to Gd being glorious and deserving of worship and us needing saved form his anger at us turning away from him. Worship only means something if directed at the right person and done with a sincere heart.
Of course, if you ask a Rabbi about who the Messiah is or whether God is a trinity o not, you'll get different answers to what a Christian would say. At the end f the day, I'm more concerned about what the Bible actually says, rather than what people claim it does.
This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.
The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.' We are still instructed to obey God's law, which is given in the Old Testament and summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbour. At no point are the laws contradicted. rather, Jesus says that he has come not to take away anything from the law, but to fulfil it. The problem here is twofold:
Firstly, people don't understand the laws and think, for example, that ti is wrong to eat pork. In actual act, it is wrong to eat unclean food. Pork is described as unclean in the OT, but following the crucifixion and resurrection, it was declared clean and could be eaten.
Secondly, people fail to distinguish between law and punishment. Homosexual acts are cited as being sinful in the OT and NT. The difference is that there was immediate judgement on earth and punishment in the form of stoning in the OT. In the NT, judgement is left until after death and there is no earthly punishment required to be administered by society. The law didn't change, just the time of judgement and punishment.
Not right. Some did, but some did not. How did Paul (nee Saul) die again? Still, how does this support your point? The fact that they died for their words doesn't in any way prohibit those words from being designed to co
The majority of the NT is written by martyrs. Paul died while awaiting trial as a result of his missionary work. He died a martyr. The gospel writers were martyrs.
> Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"?
Absolutely nothing. I'd like to ask this question of quite a few Christians, as well as quite a few non-Christians.
Incidentally, the core value is actually love God and love your neighbour. God is at the centre, not man.
However, the parallels between Satanism and Judiasm are virtually nonexistant, since there really is no formal concept of Heaven, Hell, or Satan.
At the very least, heaven and hell are mentioned in Isaiah and Satan in Job.
Re:That is what is worrying about fundamentalists.
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
I think the statement of social invasiveness is properly demonstrated.
Explaining the gospel to someone need not be socially invasive. Occasionally friends talk about important subjects.
Are you sure you've got your priorities straight? I mean, if you're looking to have God involved in every aspect of your life, then why is it considered reasonable to spend all kinds of time during the week with other people and not thinking about God at all?
I never said it was acceptable. God should be involved everywhere. The places where he's not are my failing.
On the other hand, if you are thinking about God all through the week, then church is just redundant, and therefore unnecessary, isn't it?
Having God involved in every aspect of my life doesn't mean that every aspect suddenly becomes the same. Church is relatively unique in that there will be a minister there explaining the Bible better than I could, with relevant application to my life. A minister can spend several hours researching a passage then explaining it, that i otherwise couldn't spend. It provides an opportunity for corporate praise, which is a great way to worship God and immensely encouraging personally, when I look round and see so many other people enjoying praising him. Church is where I receive Communion from time to time. It's where bible study groups get organised. it's where I meet other Christians.
Not to mention that Judgement Day will come without announcement, and so forth, and you must be in a state of grace at that exact moment or you're not going with Him, so you can't afford not to think about God all the time.
Christ died once and for all on the cross and my past, present and future sins were forgiven when I asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as Lord. God s not maliciously waiting to spring the second coming on me to try and catch me unawares. On the contrary, it is being held off so that as many as possible might be saved. My salvation is dependent, nt on me working at thinking of God all the time, but on God's grace. I can't save mself, only he can save me.
He could be there right now waiting for you to sin so he can call up judgement day and send you to your eternal tormentor.
While we are called not to sin and continued wilful sinning is a sign that we have not truly asked for forgiveness, once we are saved God equips us with his Holy Spirit to resist temptation and in his grace forgives us when we do. If God wants me saved, there is nothing that can get in the way of that, not even my on sinful nature. nothing can separate me from the love of God. If you're genuinely interested in understanding this, I suggest you get a good book on the Epistle to the Romans on use it to read through it.
Repent now, before it's too late! Brother, I fear for your soul. I really do.
I have already repented and the Son of God died for me. What could I possibly fear if God himself has guaranteed my salvation?
Re:That is what is worrying about fundamentalists.
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
Our relationship with God is both personal and collective. There is no 'redemption ranking.' We are either saved or we aren't. This is in one sense a personal matter, in that no-one can make the decision for us, however we are commanded by Jesus to go and tell others of their need to repent and to watch out for each other. When we go to church, we're not networking, but rather worshipping God, which is what we are created for. As Christians, we need built up in our faith, by learning from the Bible and and by spending time praising God in song and by serving him. It is also good to spend time praying together, encouraging one another and being accountable to one another. Yes, social interaction is a part of church life, however it is not the focus. Our first priority should be God and we should look forward to spending time learning for about him and praising him. Reading Romans 12, Corinthians and Philippians for just a few passages on how we should be spending our time.
When you say that my statement is 'socially invasive,' you seem to assume that our first priority is spending time with each other and and it is unreasonable for God to expect us to spend time with him. Given how much time we spend with other people and not even thinking about God during the week, is it unreasonable to ask for a little more concentration in church? We should be looking to have God involved in every aspect of our lives and embrace that, rather than seeing it as an invasion.
Re:That is what is worrying about fundamentalists.
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
Assuming you meant 'theological,' church [i]is[/i] about God, so surely what goes on there should revolve around him, rather than people? Ad how is soending time with God socially invasive or disruptive?
Re:Not the same as going to church...
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
However it could b effective in getting across teaching form the Bible, which is what should be at the centre of a church service anyway.
Re:This is not just for laughs
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Just because there's a church in the area doesn't mean it's going to any good. Some people have to travel a long way to get to a church where the word of God is going to be faithfully explained, rather than the place just being used as a glorified social club.
Re:Defeating some of the purpose?
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The point of going to church should be to hear the word of God explained from the Bible, spend time praising God and to encourage one another in fellowship. It's a family reunion in the sense that we're spending time together with God, our father and with Christian brothers and sisters, but I would be appalled at any church which considered the teaching secondary to any social aspect. Church should be centred on God and our relationship with him, rather than our relationship with each other. Once our relationship with God is good, that should take care of our relationships with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely it's an important matter, since the name you use indicates what you believe about his dientity? If you call God 'Allah' then you're saying 'Islam is true, Jesus was only a prophet, therefore I'm not talking to the God of the Bible.' Names can be important things.
There are quite a few anointed people in the Bible. Kings and prophets were all anointed and people that God used could be called anointed without physically having oil poured on their heads. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins, called himself YHWH and said he was the son of God.
That's fairly well known, particularly by Bible translators. Jesus is a perfectly acceptable alternative translation of Yeshua and at the end of the day, it has zero effect of the authenticity or message of the Bible.
You seem to misunderstand the translation process. They don't take a piece of text, translate it into one language, then take that piece and translate it, etc. Translations are made from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available. Over time, our translations have improved as material closer to the originals has become available. Modern OTs for instance are better translations than the one in the KJV because they use older Hebrew manuscripts, rather than the Septuagint, which was Greek translation of the OT.
If it was corrupt, you would expect contradictory claims about yet, yet the entirety of the NT consistently states this as a requirement. How do you explain that? Do you think that thousands of Biblical scholars, with the most reliable early texts, somehow all got it wrong?
Actually, I imagine that well over 50% of the population hasn't a clue how the Bible was put together and of the remainder, a big chunk of them merely think they know.
Actually, it's the other way round. The council merely confirmed a canon that was already in common usage. They didn't sit down and think 'Let's decide what books to put in the Bible.' They sat down and thought 'Everyone is using these books, so let's make them the official canon, since they already are in effect. What they believed was informed by the books that went into the Bible because they were what the church was already using.
Actually, they chose the 4 most reliable. The 4 in the Bible are consistent with one another, are closer to the original events in terms of sources and time than the other gospels and were written by trustworthy people. The apocryphal gospels were contradictory, written well after the death of any eye-witnesses and were not attributable to reputable sources. That's why they weren't used by the church.
Mark was a companion of Peter, the Apostle. Luke was written by Doctor Luke, the companion of Paul and was written with a view to presenting the truth, as testified to by eye-witnesses, as Luke says in the first few verses. Matthew was written by the Apostle, as was John most likely. So actually, they're all written by people who either directly witnessed events, or got their information from people who directly witnessed them. They were all certainly alive when Jesus walked the earth.
It's quite interesting comparing the historicity of the Bible with other great historical documents. While the earliest copies of the epistles and gospels date within the first and second centuries AD, within a handful a few decades of when the originals were written, and within a century of Christ's death and resurrection, other historical texts, which are accepted without question, generally date to hundreds of years after the originals were made, which may themselves date from a considerable time after events they describe.
What do you think of his first and most frequent teaching was 'repent and believe.' The centre of his philosophy was that mankind needed to be reconciled to God by his death and resurrection and by people repenting.
The battery life will be largely dependent on the rate of hard drive access. Lower bit rate files will allow longer sequences to be stored in RAM, reducing the rate of access, increasing battery life. Won't be a linear effect though, because you're still using power playing the music, keeping the clock going (wish you could turn this off so the iPod doesn't discharge while unplugged and not running!), displaying stuff on screen. Since Apple makes its battery claims using 160 kbps files, you should see a slight improvement with 128.
The Atari version certainly had it. Remember playing on my STe
I did A-levels in 2000/01 and I"m pretty sure graphic calculators weren't allowed. Same for GCSEs in 98/99. I'm not sure how strict on enforcing the regs most schools were. I was always quite happy with my faithful little Casio fx-115, which has now gone AWOL.
Here in the UK, they're forbidden in exams (up to and including university level) and frowned upon as a distraction and hindrance to being able to visual graphs yourself.
Most people do an MPhys at Oxford, but there is a 3 year BA course for those that aren't quite good enough for the MPhys or, like me, decide that Physics is not want they want to pursue longer term.
It's Jesus' definition, which surely is the one we should be taking?
Where, outside of the Bible, do you intend to get a record of what Jesus said and did? If you're not going to follow what Christ said there, then you've no basis for your idea of him, other than yourself, and can't possibly call yourself a follower of him.
It's not a question of my wisdom; it's a question of trusting God's revelation in the Bible. God explicitly says who he is, how we get saved and proved it by raising Jesus from the dead. It is his wisdom you are questionning, not mine.
It should have read: Trying to follow our own moral code gets us nowhere
I suggest you read Romans 1:17. It is but one of many, many, many verses that clearly expound salvation by faith.
How about all those miracles he did, the most significant of which was raising himself from the dead? If he didn't rise from the dead, don't you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have jumped at the chance to put down the upstart religion by revealing his body? Why did his disciples die in excruciating pain for the sake of the gospel, if it was a lie?
He claimed to be God, to have the ability to forgive sins, to heal people. His central message was that we needed to ask God for forgiveness and worship him. If you believe him to be moral and a good teacher, why aren't you following these teachings?
It can be shown logicaly. If God is completely glorious, completely deserving of worship, then it is the worse crime imaginable to refuse to do that. The claim of Christianity is that God is totally deserving of worship and we stand condemned for not giving the whole of our lives to him. However, in his mercy he offers to punish his son instead and forgive us. And at the end of the day, if God is God, whose moral code is going to matter more, yours or his?
There was no such commandment. It was 'Do not murder,' which is quite different. Humans have no right to murder other humans. God has the right to strike men down as punishment for their sins because he is perfect and deserves to be worshipped. If we don't, then we should be punished. It isn't unfair that God judged people on the spot on occasion in the Old Testament. It's not unfair that he sends to Hell those who don't put their trust in his son. It's merciful that any are saved at all, because none of us deserve it.
Because God created the universe and rules over it, so he gets to define what morality is. Also, if he is in control, whose idea of morality will ultimately matter, but his? Oh and why do you assume that morality set out by society is good? Do you believe in absolute good or absolute evil? If something is wrong for society today, is it perfectly alright for it to be wrong tomorrow?
Actually, Jesus explicitly said that the only way to the Father was through him and that he alone was the truth (John 314:6). He made it very clear that our salvation was dependent on placing our faith in his death in our place and resurrection, saying sorry for turning away from him and confessing him as Lord (i.e. that there are no other ways).
Actualy, that's pretty inaccurate. Jesus said that he came to fulfil the law, not to abolish it. Christianity is fairly clear on the Old Testament scriptures being correct and pointing towards Jesus' coming and dying on the cross to atone for our sins. The holy scriptures of Judaism point very much towards Christianity, it's just that a lot of Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The problem with Islam is that it claims Jesus was a prophet, not God (whihc you have to admit is a pretty major difference), that salvation comes through good works, rather than faith (again, massive difference since salvation by works is shown to be impossible and the pursuit of it leading to condemnation in Judaism and Christianity) and that God is a distant figure, in complete contrast to the loving father figure we are told we can all 'Abba' in the Bible. Basically, Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism and does not abolish it, while Islam completely contradicts them both.
The Bible makes it fairly clear that once saved by faith, there should be a change in our lives. It is not a license to go on sinning. On the contrary. if you continue to wilfully sin after claiming to be saved, it saves that you're still actually unsaved. The great thing is, however, that no matter how bad you've been, you can still be fogiven. It's just that once forgiven, your live will change. God has made it fairly clear that simply trying to be good enough will never save us because the root problem is that we turned away from him and have tried to take his place. Only turning, saying sorry and asking him to be Lord over our lives will change that.
From the sounds of things, I don't think you're a Christian at all. Jesus made it fairly clear that he was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). You can't pick and mix between religions and don't need to - Jesus offers everything. Christianity holds it central that we do need saved because we've all rejected God and need forgiven by him and that that happens by having faith in him, rather than earning your way to heaven. Trying to follow our own oral code gets us anywhere. If you really are interested in Christianity, then you should read one of the gospels or the book of Romans to see what it's really about. If you disagree with what I've just said, then you're disagreeing with Christianity and there's no point in trying to take any of its points. Everything in it points to Gd being glorious and deserving of worship and us needing saved form his anger at us turning away from him. Worship only means something if directed at the right person and done with a sincere heart.
Of course, if you ask a Rabbi about who the Messiah is or whether God is a trinity o not, you'll get different answers to what a Christian would say. At the end f the day, I'm more concerned about what the Bible actually says, rather than what people claim it does.
The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.' We are still instructed to obey God's law, which is given in the Old Testament and summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbour. At no point are the laws contradicted. rather, Jesus says that he has come not to take away anything from the law, but to fulfil it. The problem here is twofold:
Firstly, people don't understand the laws and think, for example, that ti is wrong to eat pork. In actual act, it is wrong to eat unclean food. Pork is described as unclean in the OT, but following the crucifixion and resurrection, it was declared clean and could be eaten.
Secondly, people fail to distinguish between law and punishment. Homosexual acts are cited as being sinful in the OT and NT. The difference is that there was immediate judgement on earth and punishment in the form of stoning in the OT. In the NT, judgement is left until after death and there is no earthly punishment required to be administered by society. The law didn't change, just the time of judgement and punishment.
The majority of the NT is written by martyrs. Paul died while awaiting trial as a result of his missionary work. He died a martyr. The gospel writers were martyrs.
Incidentally, the core value is actually love God and love your neighbour. God is at the centre, not man.
At the very least, heaven and hell are mentioned in Isaiah and Satan in Job.
Explaining the gospel to someone need not be socially invasive. Occasionally friends talk about important subjects.
I never said it was acceptable. God should be involved everywhere. The places where he's not are my failing.
Having God involved in every aspect of my life doesn't mean that every aspect suddenly becomes the same. Church is relatively unique in that there will be a minister there explaining the Bible better than I could, with relevant application to my life. A minister can spend several hours researching a passage then explaining it, that i otherwise couldn't spend. It provides an opportunity for corporate praise, which is a great way to worship God and immensely encouraging personally, when I look round and see so many other people enjoying praising him. Church is where I receive Communion from time to time. It's where bible study groups get organised. it's where I meet other Christians.
Christ died once and for all on the cross and my past, present and future sins were forgiven when I asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as Lord. God s not maliciously waiting to spring the second coming on me to try and catch me unawares. On the contrary, it is being held off so that as many as possible might be saved. My salvation is dependent, nt on me working at thinking of God all the time, but on God's grace. I can't save mself, only he can save me.
While we are called not to sin and continued wilful sinning is a sign that we have not truly asked for forgiveness, once we are saved God equips us with his Holy Spirit to resist temptation and in his grace forgives us when we do. If God wants me saved, there is nothing that can get in the way of that, not even my on sinful nature. nothing can separate me from the love of God. If you're genuinely interested in understanding this, I suggest you get a good book on the Epistle to the Romans on use it to read through it.
I have already repented and the Son of God died for me. What could I possibly fear if God himself has guaranteed my salvation?
Our relationship with God is both personal and collective. There is no 'redemption ranking.' We are either saved or we aren't. This is in one sense a personal matter, in that no-one can make the decision for us, however we are commanded by Jesus to go and tell others of their need to repent and to watch out for each other. When we go to church, we're not networking, but rather worshipping God, which is what we are created for. As Christians, we need built up in our faith, by learning from the Bible and and by spending time praising God in song and by serving him. It is also good to spend time praying together, encouraging one another and being accountable to one another. Yes, social interaction is a part of church life, however it is not the focus. Our first priority should be God and we should look forward to spending time learning for about him and praising him. Reading Romans 12, Corinthians and Philippians for just a few passages on how we should be spending our time.
When you say that my statement is 'socially invasive,' you seem to assume that our first priority is spending time with each other and and it is unreasonable for God to expect us to spend time with him. Given how much time we spend with other people and not even thinking about God during the week, is it unreasonable to ask for a little more concentration in church? We should be looking to have God involved in every aspect of our lives and embrace that, rather than seeing it as an invasion.
Assuming you meant 'theological,' church [i]is[/i] about God, so surely what goes on there should revolve around him, rather than people? Ad how is soending time with God socially invasive or disruptive?
However it could b effective in getting across teaching form the Bible, which is what should be at the centre of a church service anyway.
Just because there's a church in the area doesn't mean it's going to any good. Some people have to travel a long way to get to a church where the word of God is going to be faithfully explained, rather than the place just being used as a glorified social club.
The point of going to church should be to hear the word of God explained from the Bible, spend time praising God and to encourage one another in fellowship. It's a family reunion in the sense that we're spending time together with God, our father and with Christian brothers and sisters, but I would be appalled at any church which considered the teaching secondary to any social aspect. Church should be centred on God and our relationship with him, rather than our relationship with each other. Once our relationship with God is good, that should take care of our relationships with each other.
You're wrong :^) I'm not an Elements user anymore, but it had most of the Photoshop functionality, including layers.