A General discussion on the Christian faith and message

I am a born-again Christian, and consider myself somewhat knowledgable about Scripture. That said, I love my faith and would like to know where users stand on certain Christian topics, and on the Christian message as a whole. Having previously bad experiences in some of these discussions, i would like to lay a couple of guidelines your way:

1. This is a thread for discussion on the Christian faith. This means people of all denominations that profess one God and one savior, His son Jesus Christ. All other issues will be discussed and debated.
2. This is not a thread critical of the authenticity of the Bible or the relevance of the Christian faith from a secular point of view.

With those and regular Senate rules established, I would like to open the floor to all those who would like to discuss and debate the Christian way of life.

 

CK,

I am not a religious person, I do consider myself to be quite spiritual. I have proclaimed myself an Atheist, but at this point I think it balances more on agnostic; believing in a Force rather than a sentient being. With that said, lately I have begun to read the Bible...cover to cover, beginning with the Old Testament. I wanted to read the whole book strictly from a historical perspective. I have found it very interesting, especially considering the supposed age of the scriptures...an intersting insight into the sprituality of mankind today.

Anyway, one observation is that the Bible is more of a story of one family's lineage and their relationship with God. Yeah...you have Adam & Eve, then Noah....but it really begins with Abraham, IMO. Everyone of importance is a son of Abraham...Isaac, Jacob, Moses, even up to Joseph (Jesus' "father").

Not to mention...God seems to be quite malicious against those who oppose him or the 'family' rather than being the all-loving, compassionate God we hear of today: e.g. The children of Israel.

Im just curious how this effects your faith and how do you interpret it?


EDIT: Please know that I have no ill will in my inquiries. I admit that in the past I have been less than cordial in the Atheist Discussion thread but I have come to simply respect the faith of others provided it leads them to live better lives and respect others.

 

Great question Qui


Simply put, I believe the Bible teaches that God created man and woman, and they rebelled against him. His Holy nature demands he punish sin (rebellion). He must punish sin, and the only punishment fir for sin is death (God is life; anything that is not of him is death). Therefore, we're all worthy of death.
The fact that he offers mercy to any of us speaks of Him and his love. He loved Abraham because "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". It's not that he is against us, we are against him. Only through receiving frogiveness through Jesus can the wrath of God be fulfilled and us not punished.

 

I suppose I can introduce myself. I am a Christian. I have not read the Bible in it's entirety so I do not consider myself particularly knowledgable. But I do have a couple comments I'd like to make.

Not to mention...God seems to be quite malicious against those who oppose him or the 'family' rather than being the all-loving, compassionate God we hear of today

I noticed the same thing. For example in 2nd Kings ch 2 v 23 & 24 it says:

Elisha left Jericho to go to Bethel, and on the way some boys came out of a town and made fun of him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they shouted. Elisha turned around, glared at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces.

Being torn apart by a bear for calling someone "baldy" sounds pretty harsh and maybe, maybe a little bit of an over-reaction. I don't really know how to reconcile something like that with the good, kind, loving God I've been taught about my whole life. But the Bible can be contradictory. For all the examples like the one above there are other examples where you see that good, kind, and loving God I mentioned.

As for the original post...

and would like to know where users stand on certain Christian topics

I have a couple topics I would like to bring up. The first I don't think is a really hot debate, it is Creationism vs Science. The Bible says that on day one God created light and named the light day and the dark night. And we have people who say "The Bible says it took seven days to create everything so it took seven days to create everything." (Well, six and a day of rest but you get the idea.) I've never really understood that viewpoint. On day one God created days. So in the very beginning days didn't even exist yet. Why then must it be that creation took exactly 168 hours?

The second topic I'd like to bring up is the homosexuality topic. Personally I find the physical act of homosexuality to be disgusting. But, I cannot help that I am attracted to women, not men. It's just the way I am and, it's only my opinion, but I can't help but think that gays are gay because that's just the way they are. I can't see how being who you were born is sinful.

and on the Christian message as a whole

I find the Christian message as a whole to be far more positive than negative. The Bible has all kinds of guidelines that, if you live by them, can help you to lead a good, moral life.

Anyhow, I hope that all made sense, it's getting late here.

lordmaul13

 

I've been wanting to see a thread like this for a while, but never quite felt ready to start it, mainly because of all the other religious threads that were on here for a time. Glad to see it now.

Anyway, one observation is that the Bible is more of a story of one family's lineage and their relationship with God. Yeah...you have Adam & Eve, then Noah....but it really begins with Abraham, IMO. Everyone of importance is a son of Abraham...Isaac, Jacob, Moses, even up to Joseph (Jesus' "father").

I agree. But then again, there is an awareness of that in children's spirituals:

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them, and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord!

And then they tend to mix it with the hokey-pokey and the message gets a little muddled.

Not to mention...God seems to be quite malicious against those who oppose him or the 'family' rather than being the all-loving, compassionate God we hear of today: e.g. The children of Israel.

If you're discussing the Old Testament God, yeah, He was scary. Luckily He decided that no one could earn salvation and decided to give it freely to all. I'm sure glad He did!

Sin requires payment, still, and the payment for sin is death. Jesus paid it for us, but if we don't accept it, we have the debt that we have to pay. Malicious it may seem, but each and every one of us has it coming. Jesus is like the guy trying to take the bullet for you. Either you accept it and let Him, or you shove Him out of the way and take it yourself.

Im just curious how this effects your faith and how do you interpret it?

I guess I answered this for my part.

M. Scott

 

CitizenKane, I believe your answer of Qui-Rune's question is right on the money. The God of the OT is the same God in the NT. He is a God of justice, but He is also a God of mercy. God destroyed the nations surrounding Israel (and eventually Israel itself) not only to help keep Israel pure (which was necessary since the Redeemer would come from that lineage), but also because of the disobedience of those nations. It was their own fault, just like it is our own fault if we remain in a sinful condition. God gave other nations opportunities to repent, likely far more than is recorded in the scriptures. Though the OT focuses mainly on Israel, you can look at the prominent example of Nineveh, a foreign city which God spared because of their repentance. In fact, looking at the conquest of Canaan, God did not allow Israel to take the land until the cup of the transgressions of those people overflowed (Gen. 15:16). As far as comparisons go between the nature of judgment in the OT and that of the NT, the scriptures reveal that we should be more fearful with that of the NT because the abundance of grace that is rejected in living sinfully today (Heb. 10:26-31).

28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

LordMaul13 brought up the question about the days of Creation, as well as a question on homosexuality. For the first question, a basic rule of interpreting scripture is that what is written is to be taken literally unless it is either expressly stated to be figurative (such as the symbols in Revelation) or it could not reasonably be interpreted in any other way (such as a metaphor - Lk. 13:32, speaking of Herod, "go tell that fox"). So the question is, can the six days of creation be taken literally? Even with the fact that a solar day was not possible until the fourth day, when you consider that the account was written by God looking back as a historical account, and that it was written in a simple way that man could understand, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that when God said to Moses that the creation was completed in six days, he meant actually 24 hour days. This conclusion is bolstered by the Jewish keeping of the Sabbath, which God instructed the Jews to do to parallel the Creation. They were to work 6 days and rest the seventh, just as God worked six days and rested the seventh.

As for homosexuality, I am not convinced that any are born homosexual. I believe that the Bible teaches that it is against nature (Rom. 1:26-27). However, just as some might have a proclivity to engage in some sins that others may not (drunkenness, fornication, murder, etc), I believe there are those that are more likely than others to be faced with temptations of homosexuality. God expects us, though, to overcome our flesh and be ruled by our spirit. This would include one rejecting temptations of homosexuality just as much as another who is hot tempered by nature must reject temptations to murder.

Finally, I might add that while I am a Christian and a member of Christ's church, I am not a member of any denomination. I believe that the whole idea of denominations is contrary to God's will. He wanted all to be joined in one body, one faith, one Lord, and one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6), but denominations emphasize that many bodies, many faiths, and many baptisms are ok. I believe that for one to truly be serving God in spirit and in truth, he must reject denominationalism and use the Bible as his only "creed". Though this belief may be offensive to some, to those with hearts to follow God's word and to receive His grace, it is part of the go

 

I was raised Roman Catholic, "rebelled against it" in college and now I have embraced my faith as a whole. My emphasis is on the faith, not necessarily the religion. I still consider myself Catholic, but a pretty bad one. I'm really lazy about going to church, I only seem to attend on Christmas, Easter, weddings, and funerals. I have never read the Bible cover to cover because again, laziness. I don't agree with a lot of church doctrine, but I follow the basic principles of morality of the Bible. I have little to no doubt of the existence of God. I only pray when times in my life are bad, and tend to ignore Him when times are good. (Lately, I've tried to thank Him for the good things that I overlook in life). That's my take on my own Christianity.

 

I once considered myself an average Christian, but I cant do it anymore. A large part, Christians have turned me off to the religion. This is in no way meant to be taken offensive, but no doubt some will take it that way. Some people just cant handle criticism.

I was 17 when I was first saved, and I took everything that was taught in Church and Sunday School in blind faith. Afterall they do teach blind faith will be rewarded. I honestly believed the church was much improved since yesteryear when witch hunts and church sponsored executions were all too common. How wrong I was.

In this day and age we have corruption in the government, starvation and homelessness, high crime rates, poorly educated kids being passed through the system, people turning to drugs, and alcohol, terrorism and war. Kids growing up without role models,high divorce rates, the enviornment slowly corroding and the church's main focus is to raise millions of dollars to fight the "gay agenda" or to ban Mickey Mouse products or Harry Potter, then when a law or bill is passed that somehow violates their opinion of how the world is supposed to be they quickly pull out the persecution card, not realizing they themselves could just as easily be seen as being the persecutors.

The Bible I have come to the opinion has been corrupted by the early church, emperors and kings (King Henry VIII anyone). Schism after schism tears the church apart, dividing Christiandom among more lines, giving Christians more to bicker about. Just like at the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the western church refused to help save their fellow Christians unless they rejoined the Catholic church. Its this stupid kind of squabbling that turns people off to the religion.

Now we are seeing the church dying in the west, while gaining influence in the east, which particularly thrills me. Undoubtedly the eastern church will place more values on humanism, perhaps show some influence on Buddhism in their church. Hopefully this cycles around and returns the religion in favor in the west. The church in the west seems to me to be more hateful than it should be, not the way I view Christ.

I have been to churches where people were escorted out for not paying dues. When the coal mines were shutting down around here in the 1980's and my dad lost his job he went to the church for help, he was told the church didnt have any money to spend so it could pave the parking lot. They were willing to let a family go without so they can pave a parking lot. They didnt pave the parking lot for another 15 years, meaning recently. Christlike? I dont think so.

Ive lost alot of faith in the religion, and the only people to blame are the adherents. I dont think they have any idea who they represent.

 

Appreciate everyone's comements


Xen

Believe me, I feel your pain. I too have been critical of the Christian "subculture" and their increasing lukewarmness. However, i think it is important to put out faith in Christ, not Christians.
Believers are called to love each other and everyone else. That, obviosuly, we don't do perfectly (neither can we). But, the Bible is very clear about many subjects, and I find that much undue criticism is levied against Christians in the name of their "misrepresenting" Christ's message.
Take homosexuality. I am called by my saviopr to love homosexuals. However, love does not equal tolerance. Love explicitly means doing what is best for that person. So, if God condemns homosexuality (as he does lying, murder, etc. ) I cannot consciously encourage my friend to continue in this open rebellion to God, any more than he can let me continue in my lies or hatred.
As far as Harry Potter goes, I don't know anything about it. Never read, therefore I can't intelligently pass judgement on it. The Mickey Mouse thing you mentioned is about the Southern Baptist Convention's boycott against Disney. It was discovered circa 1996 that Disney had particular buisness affiliations with a porno film company. Thus, the SBC felt it neccessary to excecute a boycott of Disney.
Christians don't always get it right. We're not perfect, but we are forgiven.

 

The Bible I have come to the opinion has been corrupted by the early church, emperors and kings (King Henry VIII anyone).

How can you say this, when we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prove the copies we have of the Old Testament are almost completely accurate translations (except for a few things here and there, like names of people), and when we have copies of the New Testament dating WAY back, some parts almost all the way back to the originals? The Bible has been well-preserved, despite the claims of those who would have us think otherwise. Granted, meaning of words has changed, and some words and phrases have been translated incorrectly all the way down the line, but the original languages ARE there to be read and interpreted, and we do have proof that those copies are fairly accurate copies of the originals.

Regarding your complaints with the Church, that is why I no longer bother with church membership and the like. I do attend a certain church regularly (one in which I have MANY disagreements in both doctrine and tradition, incidentally), I no longer devote myself to any one institution and its practices. I worship with Christians, usually a particular group but only because I feel God has called me to be with them, and I serve everyone. As for the political and business aspects of it, I simply ignore it now.

 

I no longer devote myself to any one institution and its practices.

Do you mean denomination? If so, you're not alone. Non-denominational churches are on an astounding rise.

 

Well, not even that. I don't even have a membership. Well, I do, but I haven't been to that church in, oh, over a year, and I don't intend to return. My point is, although I do have a specific group of friends and relationships in one particular church, I don't devote myself to the institution itself.

 

I've attended church at a non-denominational center many times. Very interesting. Though I think I love my faith a little more than that of non-denomination.

I asert that Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the literal Son of God. I do not believe in many traditional Christian idea's. Sprinkling, The Trinity, or most Christian's idea's about the Afterlife. I believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are three separate beings. I believe that Baptism is only correctly done by emersion, and must be done by somebody in proper authority. I do not believe in Purgatory or Original Sin.

I do believe in a Living, Loving and Caring Father in Heaven. I believe that God is more my Father than my Creator. I believe that our eventual Goal is to become as close to and as alike to God and Jesus Christ as we can. That is the purpose of life IMO, to learn and become like our Father.

JMA

 

I believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are three separate beings.

Sorry, I don't want to jump on you - mostly because trinity puzzles me also. I better don't think about it.
But if God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three seperate beings they can't be divine because this would violate the Ten Commandments. You could say Jesus wasn't human but somehow created by God and somehow special - as far as I remember this was the thesis of Arius. But bad news - since about 400 AD the Church has banned those views. Jesus, God father and the Holy Spirit are one.
A second question that pretty much astonished me when I heard it in religious instructions was - is Jesus human or divine? Well think about it for a second - the correct answer (according to the Christian theology) is: he is both.
IMO most of the people don't know about this and other little details in faith. I'm also pretty sure many Catholics are not aware that the bread they're eating is the body of Jesus Christ.
I was also wondering about the US election. I assume Bush voters are the more religious ones - also Bush voters are the richer ones. But in the bible Jesus says more than one time that rich ones cannot enter paradise that one cannot serve god and mammon at once. So are those one who serve mammon 6 days a week and god one day a week bad Christians? Is getting rich against the Christian spirit, or can a rich one follow the faith by doing good things (I remember the fahter of the lost son was quite rich but he didn't care about the money)? Is Christianity a better form of Socialism?

 

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and follows Christ would do what Christ did while here on Earth.

Christ taught peoople about God and the purpose of establishing his Kingdom which he would become king of.

He emphasised that everything he did was for God's glory not his own.

He made God's name known and sanctified it.

He taught people that this system which Satan rules is only temporary and that it will be done away with and people would return to the state that man was originally created for before Adamic sin. Perfect, everlasting life on a garden like planet.

 

my take on christianity:

1.buy a red letter bible. 2.read all the red letters. 3.take that to heart. 4.pass it on.

 

I'm a Southern Baptist who is swiftly being pushed out by the convention and the changes that have occurred in it since the day I was baptized.

Most of my way of dealing with the world is based on following what Jesus said and did, ideas from the New Testament Epistles (although filtered through reason and faith; I'm not an inerrantist and Paul clearly was living in his historical era), and living by the idea described in Galations 5:18: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law (Holman Christian Standard).

I'll still follow things from the Old Testament religious Law, but I use what I call the "Hot Stove Test". God's relationship with us is that of a father to his children. So, when you grow up (in this case spiritually), you aren't directly under your parents' rules anymore. You pick your own bedtime. You decide when to study and how. Most of the life decisions you have to make are now things where they either no longer have input or choose to let you make your own decisions. Even so, you don't touch hot stoves, even if the reason you didn't in the first place was a parental rule.

I think there are two basic sets of rules in the Old Testament Law: the religious purity stuff (no to anything done by groups living near the Hebrews who worshipped other gods, various proscriptions and festivals to set the Hebrews apart as a religious group, etc.) and the Hot Stove rules. I run stuff through a simple process of 1) Do I feel like the Holy Spirit is telling me I should follow this? and 2) Is it a Hot Stove rule? So far as I can tell, this hasn't failed me yet.

 

SnorreSturluson, in answer to your question about Christians that are wealthy and their relationship to God, it is not money itself that is the evil that separates one from God. It is the love of money. Notice 1 Tim. 6:9-10.

9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

There are some Christians that have been blessed with wealth, but like any blessings, God calls on us to use those blessings for the good of others and not just hoard them to ourselves. He continues talking about the extra responsibilities that the rich have in 6:17-19.

17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. 18 Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, 19 storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

In Mt. 19:24, when Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into Heaven, he was alluding to the added responsibilities and temptations that come along with earthly treasures. He didn't say it was impossible, though, and upon question of His disciples, "Who then can be saved?", Jesus says in verse 26, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So a rich man can enter Heaven by putting his faith in God and not in his riches.

 

I bet it was a rich dude who first came up with that interpretation

 

1.buy a red letter bible. 2.read all the red letters. 3.take that to heart. 4.pass it on.

While the idea of just taking what Jesus said and did and following that sounds good on the surface, in doing so you would not be preaching or obeying the full gospel. Yes, Jesus is our perfect example and we should strive to be more like Him every day, but to cut out the rest of the Bible would be to deny even some of those "red words" that He spoke.

In Christ's prayer in the garden in Jn. 17, He speaks of passing the torch, so to speak, to His apostles. (red lettering used to emphasize that these are the words of Jesus)

14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

Jesus sent His apostles to preach the gospel after His death. So if we want to honor the words of Jesus, then we will also keep the words of those He sent after Him. He speaks in Jn. 16 of sending the apostles the Holy Spirit so that they would be able to reveal all truth.

13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

This is the same revelation of the gospel that Paul spoke of in Eph. 3:1-10. He wrote down what was revealed to him by inspiration of God so that those that came afterwards (including us) would be able to understand the gospel of Christ.

3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets

So when the apostles spoke (and wrote) the gospel after Christ's ascension, it was not on their authority, it was by the authority of Christ. So to reject their words is to reject the very words of Christ.

 

Very good points, Dogbert

 

Too bad Paul wasn't an apostle.

 

Actually, its too bad for you that all the apostles recognized him as a legitimate leader of the early church on par with themselves.

 

Too bad Paul wasn't an apostle.

That's not what the Bible says:

Romans 1:1
PAUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

1 Corinthians 1:1
PAUL, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1 Corinthians 9:1
AM I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Galatians 1:1
PAUL, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Was he one of the original 12? No. However, that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been an apostle. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot among the 12, and he was referred to as an apostle. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Paul might have similarly been chosen to join the 12 as other members were killed?

He's not even the only apostle named other than Matthias and the original 12. James, the Lord?s brother, (Galatians 1: 19), and Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9: 5-6; Acts 14: 4, 14) are also referred to as apostles.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Throw the Bible away if you cannot rely on the apostle Paul.

It was the apostle Paul?s privilege to write more books, or letters, of the Christian Greek Scriptures than anyone else

Christianity is a sham without him.