Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

[rumborak]

You know the peace of knowing something is resolved or predictable. Even with all uncertainty and seemingly bad things happening, God can give you complete peace. It's a different kind, and I know it probably sounds absurd...but it's true.

That's a fallacy, of subjectivism. "No no, mine is different , even though it sounds exactly like yours. I got the REAL thing, you don't".

rumborak

[Jamesman42]

Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.

[Quadrochosis]

Muslims are "Christians"

lol no

[eric42434224]

Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.

I dont think he is saying his "peace" isnt subjective.  He is saying that they all are.  All personal experiences are.  Your "peace" and his "peace" dont even have to be different...they may very well be the same.  Maybe all "inner peace" is divine regardless of personal religious beliefs, and maybe there is no god and they are all contstucts we ouselves make, or are organic/chemical in nature.

[rumborak]

Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.

Well, if people actually got guided by God, wouldn't it inevitably mean they made better life decisions than non-believers? I think the track record pretty conclusively shows that that is not the case.

rumborak

[rumborak]

Muslims are "Christians"

lol no

Did you actually read the second part of the sentence? Jesus is a prophet in Islam.

rumborak

[Seventh Son]

Muslims are "Christians"

lol no

They worship the same god, but yeah that was kind of lol

As for me, I've never "felt" whatever it is many Christians claim to feel when they talk about Jesus and all. I've never felt peace or tranquility from it, but that's just me. More power to you if you do I suppose.

[UnutterableSquid]

This.  Many Christians *seriously* downplay the degree or importance of the countless differences in doctrine between denominations.  Which is strange, because you would think that when dealing with matters such as absolute truth and eternal damnation, getting it right would be the utmost priority.

-J

I'd say that part of the reason for that is the flawed idea that Christianity is going extinct simply because western society is becoming more secularized as time goes by.

I don't have numbers or statistics or anything, but I doubt that it is as extreme as some people like Pat Robertson seem to think.

The idea is presumably that instead of getting boggled up in theological issues, people will instead embrace that they have some links and work to promote those first.

I guess it is not unlike members of the Democratic and Green parties agreeing on some stuff to get pro-environment ideas out there, but then still disagreeing on other policies.

My personal viewpoint is not to really get tied up in those theological debates to begin with simply because it ignores some of the key points of the overarching faith. I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.

[j]

This.  Many Christians *seriously* downplay the degree or importance of the countless differences in doctrine between denominations.  Which is strange, because you would think that when dealing with matters such as absolute truth and eternal damnation, getting it right would be the utmost priority.

-J

I'd say that part of the reason for that is the flawed idea that Christianity is going extinct simply because western society is becoming more secularized as time goes by.

I don't have numbers or statistics or anything, but I doubt that it is as extreme as some people like Pat Robertson seem to think.

The idea is presumably that instead of getting boggled up in theological issues, people will instead embrace that they have some links and work to promote those first.

I guess it is not unlike members of the Democratic and Green parties agreeing on some stuff to get pro-environment ideas out there, but then still disagreeing on other policies.

My personal viewpoint is not to really get tied up in those theological debates to begin with simply because it ignores some of the key points of the overarching faith. I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.

I think for the most part that is a fairly reasonable position, but it's the item I've bolded above that is the very point of contention between Christian belief sets.  I understand the appeal of simply celebrating similarities instead of dwelling on differences, and normally I wouldn't dispute it.  But like your political analogy, I don't think it applies in this case simply because truth is not a matter of opinion that can be compromised on.  Disagreement indicates error, and the consequences of error may be dire, so I think conflict for the sake of seeking truth is (in theory) necessary.  The problem is that I highly doubt that IS the reason behind most disagreements within Christianity.  My money's on pride, stubbornness, inability to let go of one's upbringing, personal biases, etc.

And of course you don't want to ignore key tenets of the faith, but that doesn't preclude theological discussion.  Don't you think that's an important part of "working out" your Christian faith when there are so many conflicting beliefs, particularly in light of a perpetual search for truth?

-J

[Jamesman42]

Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.

Well, if people actually got guided by God, wouldn't it inevitably mean they made better life decisions than non-believers? I think the track record pretty conclusively shows that that is not the case.

rumborak

This is where it gets really complicated.

First, yes, they would have made better life-decisions than nonbelievers. Assuming the Christian God exists, wouldn't it make sense that God gives the best direction in life?

Second, it's an arbitrary thing to decide what constitutes a good life decision apart from God. You may think Decision A is a good choice, whereas I would never choose Decision A. If God exists, then who knows, of all the possibilities, which decision is best and most fruitful for you as a Christian, and for others as well.

The track record is bad, I know. Honestly, it seems like a lot of Christians use God to meet an ends for their own sake. God wants you to love Him and live for Him above even making decisions; God desires obedience over sacrifice. Everything else should follow FROM your love for Him, not the other way around. I can't remember if it was on this forum or in real lie, where I read/heard that many Christians try to get God to help their own plans out, instead of giving their plans to God.

I guess the only other thing is that God sometimes calls His people to do radical things. However, I would believe that they should be done out of love. I know, "well God sent His people into war in the OT". Yes, but the Israelite nation was in a hot zone for war; do you expect them to just die without fighting? Of course, it's because of human's free will that they got to that point of having to war with each other. To the point, radical things should always be under the "umbrella of God's love". Considering Westboro Baptist Church as an extreme example, they DON'T do things out of love. It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred. It's sad that some churches judge people like that (not to that extreme, but to some degree).

[eric42434224]

It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.

Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.

[Jamesman42]

It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.

Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.

I should have prefaced that by saying that they are Christian homosexuals who are still doing acts of homosexuality.

My bad, brah.

[eric42434224]

It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.

Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.

I should have prefaced that by saying that they are Christian homosexuals who are still doing acts of homosexuality.

My bad, brah.

Christian Homosexual.
Is there such a thing?

Gotta say, homosexuals going to hell is one of the deal breakers with me and religion.

[Jamesman42]

[off-topic]

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex that they are.

So, a homosexual can become a Christian. It's the ACT of homosexuality that is sinful.

No need to derail this topic, because it'll get stupid and pointless.

[/off-topic]

[bosk1]

Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.

Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.

I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things.  The Bible certainly teaches neither.  

[kirbywelch92]

I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.

Therein lies the exact issue and the point of the entire thread. If you do believe in Jesus' existence, than either he is exactly who he says he is, or you have to acknowledge that 75% of his teachings and acts are either the works of an insane man or were made up entirely.

Many say that logically they can't believe in this. But, if somebody was saying things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and didn't perform some kind of miracles to support his claim, then he would have been just as ignored as any other beggar or crazy person.

[bosk1]

@Bosk

I'm afraid I have to disagree, I don't find the second question superfluous at all as my experience has proved that even many professing Christians believe in both the existence and teachings of Jesus, but don't acknowledge his role as the Messiah because of its "supernatural" nature. This thread is kind of an undeclared poll really, I'm tempted to make a sister thread on the findings.

I'm just saying that the wording of your first question unintentionally makes the second question superfluous.  If you said "Do you believe in Jesus of Nazareth," that would allow for both the possibility of someone believing he existed as well as the belief that he is the messiah (and various shades in between).  But putting the term "Christ" after his name, whether you intended it or not, your first question is actually asking "Do you believe in Jesus the Messiah."  If the answer is yes, then by definition, the person is saying they believe he is more than human.

[Jamesman42]

Gotta say, homosexuals going to hell is one of the deal breakers with me and religion.

I missed this edit.

Still, my post above explains what's going on with that stuff.

[hefdaddy42]

I believe that Jesus existed, and that he was raised by God after his death.

I also belief that the historical Jesus would be bewildered by many of the things that have been attributed to him, and many of the things said or done in his name.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.

Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.

I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things.  The Bible certainly teaches neither. 

1. You've REALLY had experiences where God actually directly spoke to you... like, he appeared in front of you or produced audible speech?  In my 10 or so years as a devout Christian, I never experienced anything like that.

2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?

[j]

2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?

What is the point of faith anyway?

-J

[rumborak]

2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?

Well ..... he did, right? The Bible is full of it.

rumborak

[Jamesman42]

Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.

Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.

I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things.  The Bible certainly teaches neither. 

1. You've REALLY had experiences where God actually directly spoke to you... like, he appeared in front of you or produced audible speech?  In my 10 or so years as a devout Christian, I never experienced anything like that.

2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?

How are you defining faith?

[Dr. SeaWolf]

The assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen.

In other words, you don't have a way of empirically demonstrating God's existence, but believe he exists because of personal, experiential evidence, such as that peaceful feeling you were talking about earlier.  There's nothing wrong with that though, and if that improves the quality of your life, then it's a wonderful thing.  However, when that conviction becomes fanatical, then things like the WBC and suicide bombers result, and that's not so wonderful.

[Jamesman42]

Gotcha.

[ScioPath]

Christ means Messiah. I therefore do not believe in Jesus 'Christ'.

I do believe in Jesus Ben-Joseph. I respect him, not as humanity's savior, but as one of history's many great teachers.

[sneakyblueberry]

I believe in Jesus the Christ.

[Quadrochosis]

It's the ACT of homosexuality that is sinful.

This is a bigoted statement and Jesus said to love our neighbors so your statement is sinful in and of itself. Twisting and perverting scripture to suit bigotry is pretty ridiculous.

[Zook]

So the bible says that all men deserve to be punished and that's why god told jesus to die for our sins?

[Jamesman42]

 

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9


Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.

[Zook]

What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?

[eric42434224]

I find it tragic that some people live by those words.

[sneakyblueberry]

What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?

Is it a sin to joke about blending up babies and eating them as salsa with corn chips?

[Seventh Son]

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9


Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.

Is it ever explained why homosexuality is wrong?

[Zook]

WTF @ Sneaky