A question to the Christians

[colby25]

We are saved only through God's grace through Jesus Chridt for He died for us on the cross. For if we could uphold the law then He died in futility, but no one is righteous and can uphold the law (the 10 commandments).

Though when a person is saved you can tell by their fruit. We produce good fruit because we accept Jesus Christ. If a man makes no attempt to live by God's word than it is obvious this person is not saved if they live with wreck less abandon. Faith without works is dead and I feel there is much work and we should always strive to better and better...to be sanctified through Christ.

Were all sinners so we are saved by grace. Once we have accepted Christ as our savior is when we begin to produce good fruit through Jesus.

 

[CombatCyborg]

CASE A

1) Two men, let's name them Tim and Tom, get to know each other and fall in teh gay love with each other. They do abstain from having sex, though, as they are Christians and aware of the sinfulness of their potential behaviour.
2) Over the course of time, Tim realizes he is actually a woman in a man's body. He undergoes full sex change and is now Kim and legally a woman.
3) Tom stays loyal to Kim (ex-Tim) and proposes. The two get a regular hetero marriage. In addition, being Christians, they want to marry in a Church. Afterwards, they want to have lots of marital sex.

CASE B

Tom only meets Kim after sex change. The two get a regular hetero marriage. In addition, being Christians, they want to marry in a Church.

Your opinions? Please give reasons WHY you think what you think as well.

What's the question, whether they should be allowed to marry in a church?

Look, if the church leaders of those men had any balls they would excommunicate them from the church.

The idea that you can "be Christian" and just ignore all the parts that obviously advocate for the natural order is astonishing.

 

[CombatCyborg]

I can quote dozens of verses arguing that salvation is a gift of God through faith in Christ. Just because good deeds is proof of our salvation, doesn't mean that good deeds are what salvation is based on.

If salvation is gained by good deeds, the whole thing falls apart. Christ no longer has to die, we just do what we can. God requires perfection, that's why Christ has to forgive us, and to gain this atonement, we must believe in Christ. For whoever believes in him shall be saved. If you believe in your heart you will be saved. Salvation is a gift from God based on faith by grace so that no man can boast. If it's based on works I can boast that I have earned salvation. It goes against the entire NT.

While it's obvious that salvation doesn't come from works, I think if somebody is saved then they will do good works for the sake of them. If you don't follow the commandments of Jesus, and bear good fruit, how could you say you believe he is Lord? It's contradictory.

 

[Bloodworth]

You think a surgery and legality can change someone's sex. It's called DNA.
There is no way they could ever reproduce. Only in this day and age can a specie survive and choose such short lived generations of family.

 

[UpaLoompa]

You think a surgery and legality can change someone's sex. It's called DNA.

The difference is in the allosome pair present (for mammals). The DNA differences are pretty minor, though chromosomes are made of DNA.

There is no way they could ever reproduce. Only in this day and age can a specie survive and choose such short lived generations of family.

What does this even mean?

 

[These Two Hands]

You can certainly hold this belief, but it is entirely unbiblical. If you want to take this stance, you can, but won't be able to stand behind the bible while you do so.

So the Nicean Creed is contrary to "Biblical" Christianity? Is that what you're saying here?

The first part of his post is all in line with the Nicean Creed. The second part is a misunderstanding of the nature of invincible ignorance and how exactly it works.

 

[These Two Hands]

This too is debatable..

from my understanding, Muslims trace the lineage to the same monotheistic, Abrahamic God through Ishamael, whereas Christians do it through Isaac.

It's the same all powerful, Monotheistic God, the same one who made revelations to Moses, Jesus, Abraham found in both the bible and qu'ran.

Perhaps based on the same concept, and certainly claiming the same lineage. But how can such a fundamental difference as, for example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity (Three persons in one God) be simply viewed as another interpretation of the same God as that of the Mohametans, when they consider the notion of a Trinitarian Godhead to be blasphemous; their God is not the same as the Christian God fundamentally in concept and in nature.

 

[These Two Hands]

I can quote dozens of verses arguing that salvation is a gift of God through faith in Christ. Just because good deeds is proof of our salvation, doesn't mean that good deeds are what salvation is based on.

If salvation is gained by good deeds, the whole thing falls apart. Christ no longer has to die, we just do what we can. God requires perfection, that's why Christ has to forgive us, and to gain this atonement, we must believe in Christ. For whoever believes in him shall be saved. If you believe in your heart you will be saved. Salvation is a gift from God based on faith by grace so that no man can boast. If it's based on works I can boast that I have earned salvation. It goes against the entire NT.

[14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

[26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

We will all be weighed and measured. We are judged at death, it is impossible for somebody still living to be "saved" as they have not yet run the course. Just as we may be judged and punished for our sins, so too will we be judged by how we have lived the Faith. We are judged by our works. This determines whether we will end up in Heaven, or whether we will end up in Hell. Salvation comes from God by His Will and would not be attainable without His Grace; however God gives all men sufficient means for salvation. Therefore being "saved by our works" refers more to whether or not we actually step up and accept what He is offering us by living according to His edicts.

This is the Christian view of that issue, I have basically paraphrased and condensed what St Alphonsus Liguori writes in The Eternal Maxims, as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Oldmansavage]

We will all be weighed and measured. We are judged at death, it is impossible for somebody still living to be "saved" as they have not yet run the course. Just as we may be judged and punished for our sins, so too will we be judged by how we have lived the Faith. We are judged by our works. This determines whether we will end up in Heaven, or whether we will end up in Hell. Salvation comes from God by His Will and would not be attainable without His Grace; however God gives all men sufficient means for salvation. Therefore being "saved by our works" refers more to whether or not we actually step up and accept what He is offering us by living according to His edicts.

This is the Christian view of that issue, I have basically paraphrased and condensed what St Alphonsus Liguori writes in The Eternal Maxims, as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers.

This is actually a whole load of heresy and taken out of context. James was essentially saying that it is impossible for person to have faith and not produce good works. By their fruits you will recognize them, etc.

John 3:16 outlines the way to salvation and to say that we are saved based on our own merits nullifies the need for Jesus to take all the world's past, present, and future sin upon himself. He would have died in vain if what he said was true.

There is a huge difference between the White Throne Judgment and the Judgement Seat of Christ. This is very basic Christian doctrine that churches have failed to teach properly. This has twisted the gospel and made men more wary of there mortal souls each and every misstep instead of actually having a proper relationship with Christ which will lead to a Christian being fruitful.

This is the true failing of the church.

 

[These Two Hands]

This is actually a whole load of heresy and taken out of context. James was essentially saying that it is impossible for person to have faith and not produce good works. By their fruits you will recognize them, etc.

John 3:16 outlines the way to salvation and to say that we are saved based on our own merits nullifies the need for Jesus to take all the world's past, present, and future sin upon himself. He would have died in vain if what he said was true.

There is a huge difference between the White Throne Judgment and the Judgement Seat of Christ. This is very basic Christian doctrine that churches have failed to teach properly. This has twisted the gospel and made men more wary of there mortal souls each and every misstep instead of actually having a proper relationship with Christ which will lead to a Christian being fruitful.

This is the true failing of the church.

Lol. Heresy? Salvation by faith alone was first proposed by Luther; infamous heretic...

 

[dontsnitch]

Lol. Heresy? Salvation by faith alone was first proposed by Luther; infamous heretic...

I agreed with everything oldmansavage wrote, think he's spot on.

What did the thief on the cross do to earn his salvation? It certainly wasn't his life of good deeds. It wasn't his good works in the end. It was simple faith. Not only that, Christ told him he was saved there and then, he didn't say that if he continued faithfully 'til death, he would be saved. The thief did one good thing in his life, his bad deeds certainly outweighed his good ones, and he was saved by faith, just as we are.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. The thief believed and was saved. Abraham believed and was saved. The works are only symptomatic.

 

[dontsnitch]

While it's obvious that salvation doesn't come from works, I think if somebody is saved then they will do good works for the sake of them. If you don't follow the commandments of Jesus, and bear good fruit, how could you say you believe he is Lord? It's contradictory.

Agreed.

 

[These Two Hands]

I agreed with everything oldmansavage wrote, think he's spot on.

What did the thief on the cross do to earn his salvation? It certainly wasn't his life of good deeds. It wasn't his good works in the end. It was simple faith. Not only that, Christ told him he was saved there and then, he didn't say that if he continued faithfully 'til death, he would be saved. The thief did one good thing in his life, his bad deeds certainly outweighed his good ones, and he was saved by faith, just as we are.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. The thief believed and was saved. Abraham believed and was saved. The works are only symptomatic.

St Dismas is actually my patron saint, interestingly enough. Not entirely an example that helps your case, as a public profession of Faith is considered an "act" or "work"...

Also, St Dismas's particular case is one of Baptism of Desire due to particular and specific circumstances, hence having then been "baptised" and not committing any sinful acts between then and his death, he was free of both original and mortal/actual sin at his deathbed.

Members of actual, professed, Satanic sects (not the "scene crowd" kids but people who actually identify as Satanic by religion) also believe in these things; there's a reason they attend Masses to steal Hosts to desecrate... are they then "saved"? Or do their work condemn them?

In making your argument, are you also aware that in terms of the historical institution of Christianity you are arguing against 1484 years of institutional Christianity as being "incorrect"? Why, if you believe in the institution you claim to, would you believe it is valid despite it being in grave error for one and a half millenia? If this is case, where was there legitimate "Christianity" to be found between the Ascension and Luther's rebellion?

 

[Oldmansavage]

St Dismas is actually my patron saint, interestingly enough. Not entirely an example that helps your case, as a public profession of Faith is considered an "act" or "work"...

Also, St Dismas's particular case is one of Baptism of Desire due to particular and specific circumstances, hence having then been "baptised" and not committing any sinful acts between then and his death, he was free of both original and mortal/actual sin at his deathbed.

Members of actual, professed, Satanic sects (not the "scene crowd" kids but people who actually identify as Satanic by religion) also believe in these things; there's a reason they attend Masses to steal Hosts to desecrate... are they then "saved"? Or do their work condemn them?

In making your argument, are you also aware that in terms of the historical institution of Christianity you are arguing against 1484 years of institutional Christianity as being "incorrect"? Why, if you believe in the institution you claim to, would you believe it is valid despite it being in grave error for one and a half millenia? If this is case, where was there legitimate "Christianity" to be found between the Ascension and Luther's rebellion?

Any day of the week. An institution that provides penance to get loved ones out of hell, pray to a human Mary, not allow the laymen to have access to a bible, confess sins to a human priest, have more pagan idols than a satanic church, has a human with the professed power over heaven and hell (pope) is not worthy of honoring. All of these are not Biblical by any means whatsoever.

The catholic church is antithetical in many respects to Biblical doctrine and is a slave to many of its own religious and traditional practices that bear nothing but the act of repetitious nonsense.

 

[Kiddo716]

it's great proof that it's man-made, not supernatural. someone didn't like the way business was being handled so they tweaked the rules and started their own religion. repeat the steps and that's how you get so many different religions with similar stories.

it may have morphed into that, but it started off as

"well I think god says this"

"no he says this"

"well fuck you I'll do it my way"

I think these two post perfectly describes what has been going on for the last two pages.

 

[These Two Hands]

Any day of the week. An institution that provides penance to get loved ones out of hell, pray to a human Mary, not allow the laymen to have access to a bible, confess sins to a human priest, have more pagan idols than a satanic church, has a human with the professed power over heaven and hell (pope) is not worthy of honoring. All of these are not Biblical by any means whatsoever.

The catholic church is antithetical in many respects to Biblical doctrine and is a slave to many of its own religious and traditional practices that bear nothing but the act of repetitious nonsense.

Can you show a historical precedent for any other form of Christianity with direct lineage to Christ other than Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

Neither of which, by the way, believe that penance (or anything else) can "get [anyone] out of hell", pray to a human Mary - I'm guessing you're just throwing this out to have a laugh as there's no way you don't know what the difference is between dulia and latria in the historical Church, come now.

Not allowing laymen access to the Bible; out of interest, how many books does the Bible that your denomination uses have? I'll be willing to bet right now you are missing 7 canonical books from your Bible. Mine isn't. Are you aware of the fact that the Reformation occurred virtually concurrently with Gutenberg's development of the printing press? The fact that every single manuscript was copied out by hand, and illuminated, with painstaking effort over the span of years per manuscript coupled with the fact that the majority of laymen at the time were illiterate pretty much lays the "suppression of Scripture" argument to rest.

Pagan idols? You'll have to point these out to me as I have never seen this.

Confession and papacy are both Biblical;

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

However there has never been claim that the papacy is an office which "professes power over Heaven and Hell", rather the papacy is simply an office which governs the Church on earth (Church Militant) vicariously; hence the term "Vicar of Christ".

Out of interest, how exactly does your belief stand in Christianity whilst maintaining there was no valid form of it for a millenia and a half after it's foundation? Or how is this "gotten around" from your POV? I'm asking sincerely, as I'd like to know. There's Scriptural justification for the papacy, and for the Sacraments; there's no Scriptural justification for Sola Scriptura "do as thou wilt" stuff like you're advocating...

 

[Mike]

I think these two post perfectly describes what has been going on for the last two pages.

A whole lot of arguing over which edition of a fairy tale is correct. Seems legit.

 

[dontsnitch]

as a public profession of Faith is considered an "act" or "work"...

There's no sense in beating a dead horse, if we don't agree we don't agree.

I'd like to ask you very plainly what you would say to me if I came up and asked you what must I do to be saved? Give it to me in layman's terms.

 

[Teen Wolf]

yeah god (which one again?) made all these...8.7 million species on this planet

Another study published in 2011 by PLoS Biology estimated there to be 8.7 million

 

[TheComebackKid]

yeah god (which one again?) made all these...8.7 million species on this planet



as well as making that universe that we sit in...

Makes much more sense that this all came out of nothing