Questions you've always wanted answered about Christians

God made himself fully human so that those who He ministered to would see His care for them. Because of the fact that we believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent(all present and all powerful), we believe this is possible and not contradictory. After all, God is the alpha and omega(the beginning and the end) according to the Bible.

Which narration of the gospel is more authentic? They all were eyewitnesses to the same events. Let me give you a scenario....if 4 people witnessed the same accident, would they all see it exactly the same? All have different angles, but the accounts do not conflict. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had different professions and wrote their accounts as the Holy Spirit guided them. Each account reached different audiences shortly following the ascension of Jesus to heaven.

Only Catholics believe this idea of baptism equaling salvation. Protestants do not. We believe it is a sincere confession of acknowledgement of our sins and an honest belief that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.

There is the doctrine of the age of accountability that some Christians believe, and I do. Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Because children and those who are mentally challenged cannot fully grasp the concept of salvation, Jesus saves them. When can they fully understand the idea of salvation? That varies by the person. God is just, and He will determine that. I would argue that most children have some type of idea of salvation before they are teenagers. And I think kids older than toddlers do sin by the way. How many times have children been caught in a lie?

 

I am a Christian. I just have a quick bit of input I wanted throw in here. It is not a direct answer to any one question, but I think it addresses an underlying theme of questions asked of Christians by many non-believers.

God wants people to get into Heaven. The point of Christianity is not that God is about to send you to Hell, and you better jump on His bandwagon before He smites you. The point is that he loves us. We are all guilty of doing something wrong. We have all sinned at least once, and are therefore imperfect. He would be justified in saying that we broke His law, and deserve the punishment. He does not want to do that though. That is the whole point of what Jesus did. He came down and found a loophole in His own plan in order to save us from a fate that we created for ourselves.

One thing I think people rarely consider, is that Hell was made for Satan and his demons. It was never intended for people at all. God made people without a capacity for sin. He made us perfect, but with the option of giving up that perfection. It was our choice to move away from Him. Despite that, He came down and died in order to make sure that we could be reunited with Him right now (not just after you die). All of the selfish and spiteful motives and character flaws that we attribute to God, those are our flaws. We think that way. He thinks about sacrificing anything to save us, His children.

Luke 5 12-13
12
While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
13
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him.

See? Christianity is not a threat of death and Hell, it is a gift of love and life. He just wants to be with us, nothing more.

 

Well said.

 

1. If there were no possibility of eternal damnation, would you still believe in God? If so, why is the threat of eternal damnation a necessary part of belief in God? (I have met Christians who do not believe in Hell, so this is only directed at those who do). You say people have "chosen" this--but no one would ever choose eternal damnation.

2. What is your position on the Law of the Old Testament? According to Matthew, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. According to Paul, however, the Law was like a guardian so that we may be justified by faith--now that this faith has come, "we are no longer under a guardian" (Galatians 3:24-25). If some of the Law is "still binding", how do you determine what is? Why is it okay to say that Leviticus 18:22 is "outdated", but to still say the 10 Commandments are binding?

3. Are works irrelevant? According to James, faith without good works is dead. James 2:24 says: "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

Keep in mind that I am not an atheist, but I am also not religious. I consider myself an irreligious theist, with the belief that all religions are worshiping the same deity, whether they acknowledge it or not. For that reason I am interested in all religions.

 

They go to purgatory, and are later aloud into heaven.

---------- Post added 31st Jan 2016 at 11:00 PM ----------

Technicaly it's not eternal. It's realy only until judgement day. Then, you're given the chance to be completely cleansed.

 

Oh, well, in that case... :dry:

It makes little difference to me. Unimaginable torment beyond anything fathomable on earth is still what's at stake. But if that were eliminated--would you still believe if you knew "bad" people weren't going to suffer this torment? (I put that in quotes, because clearly it isn't just "bad" or evil people who will be tormented).

Clearly eternal damnation serves a function--everything divinely created serves a function. I allege that the function is to motivate belief. The problem of course comes when two rival religions (viz. Christianity and Islam) both assert the same thing that necessarily exclude each other.

 

Are we eliminating purgatory too? Also, what do you mean by it isn't just bad people who will be tormented?

 

Purgatory is a Catholic invention and not Biblically supported, so no, I don't put much stock in it.

What I mean by that is that it isn't just murderers and child molesters who will be in hell--so will anyone who is not a Christian, no matter how much of a good person they are. In other words, being a "good person" is irrelevant when it comes to eternal damnation. Which is ironic, considering that many people imagine eternal damnation as a kind of just punishment for certain misdeeds, certain "bad people", but clearly most Christians are not reveling in the fact that Hindus and Shintoists and Buddhists are all in hell too, no matter what kind of person they were (so will homosexuals, of course). Or do you consider these people inherently "bad"?

These might be "unpleasant" concepts to imagine, but these are the stipulations of "no one sees the Father but through me". That line really could not be more clear. It's one of the clearest statements about the fundamental concepts of Christianity there is.

This thread is about Christianity, but of course this same concept could also apply to Islam.

 

Yes, I would. As a Christian, having accepted Jesus, I am in no danger of Hell or damnation. It isn't a threat to me at all.
Hell and damnation are talked about in the Bible because they are real. It would be insane to just let everyone go on believing there is no danger at all, if you truly believed they were all in imminent danger.

If you are told that the direction you are walking leads off a cliff, and you keep walking, you chose to walk off a cliff. If you change course, you chose not to walk off a cliff. Hell is that simple. The Bible warns that there is a path that leads to heaven and the rest don't. That is what the writers believed (and what I believe), had they said anything else, they would be liars.

As gentiles, we were never under the Old testament Law. That Law was made for Jews, and most of it was specifically for Levites, as in Jewish priests. The vast majority of the laws that would even apply to us, are common sense stuff that we should not be doing anyways. Do not kill, steal, lie, cheat, hurt people...

Jesus said he could sum up the whole Law in two commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, Love your neighbor as yourself. Luke 10:27

If you are doing those two things, you won't be breaking any of the Old testament laws anyways.

If Jesus fulfilled the law...

ful·fill
fo͝olˈfil/Submit
verb
1.
bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

Why would we still be under it? If it is completed, why would we go on acting as though nothing had changed? Particularly since we were not under it in the first place, as Gentiles.

That being said, it is pretty clear that God still wants us to use the Law as a standard for morality. That is what the New Testament Christians did. The point is, we are no longer punished according to how well we kept the Law. We are judged based on our sins and good works, but the price has already been paid by Jesus, so there is no price left for us to pay. We win whether we are guilty or not.

Works are the fruit of faith. If you claim to have faith, but show no works, you are lying. Faith itself is not works, but without works, you can be sure you do not have faith. If you see a fruit without a round shape, without red/green/yellow skin, and without seeds, you can be sure you are not looking at an apple.

It is through faith that we are saved by the grace of Jesus. Works do not save us. Works lead others to be saved though. That is why works are so vitally important. Works are the light, or signs, or beacons that lead people to the love of Jesus. That is also why trying to scare people into heaven is just plain stupid.



One more quick thing. In Exodus God said, "I am who I am..."

The reason He referred to Himself that way was to show that He was/is a singular being. That His identity is found in His very existence. So whatever He does, that is who He is. In the Bible, despite contrary belief (mostly by people that have never read it, or only read the parts that they thought made their point), God shows Himself to be merciful, kind, just, and above all loving.

Allah, just as an example, has a distinct personality as distant, cold, and merciless.

How do you manage to believe that those are one and the same?

Zephaniah 3:17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.
Happy loving God^^


Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward "
Cruel and vengeful god ^^


In other words, Allah has more love for the Muslims that go out and make war. Those that are peaceful are "not equal". He clearly has no love for peace, and sees his people as little more than soldiers.

Obviously these are two completely different beings. They have next to nothing in common.

If I described a cruel little man with a funny mustache that hated Jews and started a whole war... would you assume I meant Ghandi? No. I am clearly describing Hitler. So why believe that two deities that are described completely different and have shown themselves to be completely different are one and the same?

 

That's exactly my point though--the motivation to get people to convert to Christianity is the threat of hell--that is the function of hell and the ultimate driving force behind Christianity. If there were no threat of hell, there would be no reason to convert anyone to Christianity--it wouldn't matter. There would be no motivation that is strong enough. That is the point I am making--that hell ultimately functions as a motivation to believe or at least to cause others to believe. The reason why Islam and Christianity have so many followers today is because they both offer a much more "dire" price for not believing in them. Both of them promise eternal torment for those who do not submit.

And it is not that simple--not at all. Here is a better analogy: You are walking through a hallway. At the end is a large room with a hundred doors. One may lead to eternal life, they all may do so, none may do so; and one may lead to eternal torment, all but one may, none may...and you choose one. That is how I see it.

Yes, some of them do seem to be common sense, but some of them are very specific and have very specific penalties for violating them. Laws mandating circumcision for example, are very specific and Jews today still follow them. In Paul's letters, however, he speaks of circumcision and uncircumcision as being irrelevant. Clearly some of the Old Testament laws can be broken and are regularly, by today's Christians.

I agree--that is why I believe so-called "gay Christians" are kidding themselves. That is just my personal opinion and I realize that that will clash with a lot of people on this site. If this is an offensive statement, I am fine with not sharing it again in the future.

I'm not here to debate between Islam and Christianity--that is for another thread. I will, however, say that my interpretation of that Qur'anic passage is very different from yours.

 

My point was actually the exact opposite. Hell has no meaning at all to a Christian. It may as well not exist. I can't go to Hell, no matter what I do.

God's love is the driving force behind Christianity. "We love because he first loved us." John 4:19

Your analogy describes the whole world and all of the religions in it. I was describing Christianity. In Christianity, there is Gods way, and every other way. That's it. So yes, it is that simple.

As I already said, I am not a Jew and I was never under those Laws to begin with. Gentiles were not even part of the Old Covenant. Following those Laws would have made no difference for us back then.

Gentiles are under the New Covenant, which has an entirely new system, based on the spirit of the old laws.

You can't break a law that was never made for you in the first place. It is not illegal for me to walk around without my face covered, because I am not a Muslim.

Even Jews would no longer need to be concerned about breaking the law, though they would benefit from following it. They are under grace, meaning you get a free pass into Heaven just because God wants you to. If there was any punishment you deserved, Jesus already paid it.

I don't mind that opinion at all. It is wrong, which makes it even easier to hear. Can you think of any kind of Christian that doesn't sin? The whole point of Christianity is that you absolutely must be a sinner to even become a Christian, since Jesus died to pay for our sins. If you never sinned, you do not need to be a Christian.

Using the Old Testament as a standard for morality is not a way to stay out of Hell, which we have already accomplished thanks to Jesus. It is a way to please God. We love Him. I want to please Him the same way i want to make my family happy. It is just because I want to.

You brought it up on this thread.

You brought it up, not me. The fact that Islam is part of this conversation is a direct result of your words.

It sounds to me like you just don't have an answer for what I said.

 

But it means something to a non-Christian. You can't convince someone to believe in God or believe in your religion without mentioning the dire consequences that await them if they don't. That is my point--that it is necessary. It needs to exist as a motivation. You could not convince people to believe in God if there was no chance they would go to Hell if they didn't. For some, perhaps, the idea of ceasing to exist is unappealing enough that they would want something more than that--but the threat of eternal torment is greater. And it is a very necessary one.

Yes, it is that simple--to you. But you are not seeing it from any point of view other than your own.

You said if you follow the edict of the New Testament, you wouldn't be breaking any of the laws. I put forth a situation where you would be.

Yes, everyone sins, but Jesus calls us to "sin no more". You cannot choose to practice the sin of homosexuality, knowing that it is sinful, and call yourself a Christian. That is what I disagree with and why I don't believe in the validity of "gay Christians". The only way out for a gay Christian is to convince themselves that homosexuality is not a sin. And I consider that extremely difficult to do, but there are obviously those who do so. If you do believe it is a sin, however, you have no choice but to remain celibate and try to change who you are. And maybe some people can. That is not for me to say.

It is natural that people will slip up--Jesus forgives. It is not, however, a license to willfully sin.

I brought it up as an example of another religion that is similar to Christianity and has many parallels. But if we are going to start labeling the God of Islam as vengeful and cruel (which would be highly offensive to Muslims), then no, I'm not going to be having that conversation, so you might as well stop now.

You can accept what I am telling you or you cannot. Your choice. I can see you're beginning to get belligerent, so this may be the point at which I leave this discussion.

 

This was actually not a discussion, it was a debate. I know we try to avoid that word so we can fall back on saying "I wasn't debating." But you addressed all of my arguments with counter arguments... that is a debate.

If you honestly took that little comment as belligerent, you clearly do not have the maturity for this type of debate. I was simply stating something that seemed obvious to me. I am not allowing my emotions to touch this keyboard at all.

I love a good debate with someone that understands how to leave their emotions out of it. In my experience, the first person to start looking for a way to cut it short is the one that is incapable of doing that. If you took anything I said offensively, you took it wrong.

Perhaps a religious topic is a subject that is just a little too touchy for you? I know that can sound patronizing, I seriously do not mean it that way. I mean it exactly like I said it.

 

discussion

noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

In calling it a discussion, I was not eschewing the word debate. It is both. I was not denying that.

You assuming that I did not have an answer was rude--it was a dismissal of what I've been saying.

Oh believe me, I do not need to cut it short. That was simply an option. But if you are going to harp on the Islam vs. Christianity matter, I am probably not too interested in continuing because that is not ultimately what I'm here for. I already explained why I brought up Islam and it was not to compare the descriptions of God. I am not lying about why I brought it up.

It is not. Was it touchy when I insinuated that your God and the God of Islam are one and the same? I am being honest--I assumed that I struck a nerve and that is why you were unwilling to let it go. If you want me to answer the question, I do believe they are same. I believe they are described differently because of the cultural lenses of the authors of the Bible and the Qur'an. Both descriptions are in cultural context. But the God of the Old Testament was often very vengeful and frequently sanctioned the killing of swaths of people. It is the same God--just a different context.

 

Actually the difference are so vast that even through the same cultural lens, they are not even comparable.

Also, I quoted the Quran directly, if that manages to insult a Muslim... how is that my fault?

You obviously did try to cut the conversation off, you specifically said you were done talking about it.

I mentioned Islam once, in response to you, and then I thought it was a little odd that you suddenly wanted to drop the subject. That still seems logical to me. If I phrased any of it in a way that was rude, for that I honestly apologize. It was not intentional, but I should have been more careful to get my point across without being overly-blunt. I was recently informed that I have a tendency toward brutal honesty, which is not a trait I hold in high regard. Honesty yes, brutal honesty, not so much.

I am done talking to you because I still sense far too much emotion in your writing and that will lead this all to get out of control.

I will read any response you write after this, because i do not want you to feel that I am just cutting you off. I will not respond anymore. I think that giving you the last word is a fair way to end this.

 

So you admit that I did strike a nerve with you? That was not my intention, but I wish you would admit it instead of trying to project onto me the label of "emotional" to the exclusion of yourself. Clearly the comparison between the two bothers you. But if you won't admit it, then I can't address it fully.

You labeled that description of Allah as "cruel and vengeful". That is your interpretation. That is not the interpretation I got from reading that exact same passage and I doubt any Muslim would get that same interpretation. The fact that you consider your interpretation the ultimate authority only betrays your arrogance. Nowhere in that passage does it say "Allah is a cruel and vengeful God"--those are not the words of the Qur'an, but your words.

I must say, clever of you to now end the discussion when I made it clear I was not trying to do so. That was a tactic I didn't see--it's clever and manipulative and I have some respect for it, though I am disappointed all the same.

And if you think I was only speaking with you to get the last word, then that only shows your own lack of understanding and maturity. If you are willing to speak to me again, I welcome it. But you may wish to do some self-reflecting first.

 

I have a question for Christians. Even though I am one...

Anyways, what do you think about people like Westboro Baptist Church and all that? And, I don't want it to seem like I am trying to set you up for an easy answer, so I will complicate that question a little. Keep in mind that Jesus himself occasional made a public spectacle over sin. Like, for instance, when He turned over the tables in the temple. Not only that, but he made a whip and threatened people with it.

How do you make a distinction between what Jesus did, and what people like those at Westboro Baptist have done?

 

I'd like to know how people interpret the Bible.
I haven't been around many Christians and I'd like to know that.
Do you treat the Bible as absolute fact?
Or do you interpret it as allegorical.
Also give the reason for the same.

 

This is an interesting read. I go to a Christian church too. I think I consider myself a Christian. But this is one of the things I've been struggling with.......

 

You offend me with your first point, but I agree with your 2nd.

Point 1:
If you read the first couple pages in this thread, you will see and understand the cultural/historical context of which the Bible is written MUST be accounted for. I discussed this at length Why did God at that time ban same-sex activity and other seemingly asinine issues? It was the issue of keeping the number of the Israelites up to protect the lineage to Christ. Other issues such as not mixing fabrics were in place to stop them from looking like the pagans of the day.

People then assume that I believe the Bible is in error. No, I believe the Bible is inerrant. However, we must understand the purpose and audience that each text is reaching. If people really studied the Bible through and through and recognized the original Hebrew/Greek meanings, they would realize that we view the Bible through the biases of our own time and culture. We are shortchanging the dynamic aspects of the Scriptures.

Secondly, this is an LGBT support site, so your attempt to tear down those who wish to identify as both LGBT and Christian goes against the spirit of this site.

I agree that forgiveness is not a license to sin. Jesus clearly identifies sin throughout the Gospels and there are many other timeless truths throughout the Bible regarding sin. It is important to know that the Levitical law was for the Jews as Funn had mentioned and for very specific reasons. In fact, many of those in Judaism interpret the law in different ways, but I digress.

Romans and 1 Corinthians is condemning homosexual acts but it is within the context of idol worship, sex trafficking, pedophilia etc. Because as anyone who has read ancient history knows, sacrificing and partaking in certain cult-like sex acts was common in Roman culture. These are the unnatural acts that Paul is discussing.

Jesus says very clearly to shake the dust off your feet and move on. While Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, it is not my job to do so. I don't believe we should engage them by trying to befriend them or attack them in person.

In regards to Westboro and their rationale...if you are saying that they are trying to give "Godly correction" or a Christian rebuke, I would disagree with this because what they are doing is done in a spirit of hate and not love. If you want to politely correct/advise other Christian people, you are to do it in a private and non-humiliating way per Matthew 18. I feel that this pertains mainly to friends in YOUR congregation.

I believe that Bible was divinely inspired, however I believe it must be read in context. Jesus offers many parables, speaks in hyperbole, and other interesting ways. Yet, he is also very plain in his ministerial healings, the Sermon of the Mount, etc.

The bottomline is the Bible can be more complicated than Bible read it.