Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Astreja]

 

Remind us all again.. WHAT are we being SAVED from?

 

From the wrath of the  "saviour," apparently. 

 

loop n.  See "loop."

[Realist]

 

 

From the wrath of the  "saviour," apparently. 

 

loop n.  See "loop."

 

.... from the hate of one section of human kind!

 

Oh how I love my cat!

 

[midniterider]

 

 

Well, better to get the shit scared out of you today, before tomorrow comes.   Because, like it or not, it will come.   You cannot change it.   You are going to die and stand before your Maker, and He is Jesus Christ.   And it is that which should scare the living shit out of you.  Because on that day...the dye is cast.   It's over.  Have your fun here, Reject God, blaspheme Jesus Christ, but on that day, it's over. 

 

At the 'Great White Throne Judgement' 'shitless' will be  a common experience.  

 

Stranger

 

The true face of Christianity right there. Fear, Guilt, Shame, Manipulation. The Extortion of Christ. Love me or I'll torture you forever!

[midniterider]

 

 

That is the teaching of the Bible.

 

Stranger

 

God's love: Turn or burn.

 

I don't know too many people that want everlasting torture for anyone. I know I don't. People have more compassion than your God. Your God is bonkers. If there's a real God he isn't the one in the bible. No Supreme Being would assign someone to eternal torture just because they wouldn't love him. That is a majorly twisted idea. Christians think this is just fabulous, too. I'm sure you have no problem with it. Brainwashing at it's finest. Bizarre.

[mwc]

 

 

They now had to have faith in the promise of the Seed or the Saviour to come.  That promise was first given in (Gen.3:15)."...between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."  That seed would be the Saviour to come, Jesus Christ. Adam showed he believed that in (3:20) when he called his wife "Eve, because she was the mother of all living."   Eve showed she believed that when Seth was born when she said, (Gen.4:25), "...For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."    Even though Adam and Eve were in the unique position of knowing God before, they now were lost.  And they must come God's way to get back.  

 

The main reason it is by faith is because that is the way God has made it.   And so it works no other way.   And why God made it that way is so that He received the glory instead of man.   It would be faith in God's work, not self reliance in mans work.  (1Cor. 1:26-31).

 

So, salvation in the Bible always points to faith in the Seed, the Sacrifice, Jesus Christ, the way God has chosen.

 

Stranger

     You didn't get back to me when I posted my other reply to all this.  I'm unloved.

 

     So your evidence is comprised of some Hebrew sound-a-like words (ie. Eve sounds like "life-giver" and Seth sounds like "appointed"), which is rather strange considering the circumstances, but no more strange considering the rest.

 

     There is no indication that Eve should imagine that she's looking forward to a singular savior at any point or that she would know what a "savior" is for that matter.  The curse was on the serpent not Adam or Eve even though it would involve them.  In v3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."  This is after the serpent was cursed to go on its belly and eat dust for its whole life and before god turns to punish the woman.

 

     After all that's said and done, they're removed from the garden, a guard is placed (only to keep them from the Tree of Life), and that's that.  That is their punishment.  No mention of beliefs or anything like that.  And nothing that hints at what they should tell others to believe.

 

     In fact, all we have to do is look at what god tells Cain to see what sin is:

⁶ The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? ⁷ If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

     Why is this gods advice if sin is something inborn?  This doesn't line up with later descriptions of sin.  Why wasn't Cain told of his parents "original" sin?  How that magically tainted him, and everyone and everything else, with sin and that he was now powerless against sin requiring a savior?  None of this happens.  Sin is described as something that can be mastered or ruled over by the individual, and this analogy indicates that it is through sheer force of will and nothing more.

 

     I find it odd that god's "son" (v4:1 "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.'"...not a virgin birth but something's going on...this wouldn't be the first time in history where we have a couple and a god producing offspring) is being lied to or being misled (we are told he turned out to be a murderer and marked somehow).  It seems that Cain may be upset that dad didn't like his offering.

 

     Anyhow, I'm still trying to nail down the whole beliefs thing.  I just had these thoughts and thought I'd toss them in since I didn't get any answer as to what beliefs were what.  Something more to chew on I guess.

 

          mwc

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

No, I am not implying that at all.

 

Stranger

 

Then why did you say the following in post 193?

 

1.)  I believe the Bibel is inerrant (without error) in the original autographs.   Of course we have no original autographs today.  We have copies.  But, as much as the copies record the original, they too are inerrant.

 

Why did you present that as some sort of distinction if you don't really think that there is such a distinction?

 

[Stranger]

 

@Stranger If you're married or have a significant other, you surely understand that you can have faith that your wife has never (and will never) cheat on you. But that is not the same as the truth of the matter. What if you discover strong evidence that points to infidelity?  In order for you to know the truth, would you rely solely upon your faith in your spouse and upon her word -  or would you consider the evidence, even if it flies in the face of your beliefs? Just because you may know in your heart that your wife would never cheat on you, it is not your personal 'heart knowledge' that provides the truth of the matter, one way or the other.  

Do you understand that truth and faith are completely unrelated?

 

It seems you are unable to fathom that your god could ever let a believer down, that he could allow them to sink so low as to no longer believe.   Many of us used to be just as incredulous, but then came the realization that no one was letting us down. Bible-god was just never there to begin with. 

 

So what do you hope to achieve here?  

 

 

 

The Christian faith is not a faith in man, but a faith in God.  So, I would say the parallel you give doesn't fit.   For sure, the faith you describe would be empty because it would not be true.  I believe the Christians faith and truth are related.  Because that faith is in Jesus Christ and Christ is the Truth.   (Jn. 14:6)

 

I agree that just because I believe doesn't make something so.  It is so or not.  But, the same is true for you.  Just because you don't believe, doesn't make it not there.  It is there or not.  

 

You are correct.  God will never let a believer down.     My understanding of the Scriptures is that there are no ex-christians.  Of course, not just you but many Christians disagree with me on this also.  

 

Now, having said that I will say that a believer can fall into unbelief,  but that doesn't make him an exchristian.  (Heb. 3:12)   

 

I have nothing I am trying to achieve.    I am giving my view of the truth as you are. 

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

No, I will never be like you.   God and Christ have been with throughout my whole life.   My experiences, and many have been very difficult, lead me only to the realization of God's love for us and His all watchful eye over us.  

 

I used to think the same way when I was a Christian. I was just as ignorant then as you are now. I eventually saw through the nonsense, though, so there's a slight chance that you may eventually, too, even though it doesn't look like it now.

 

 

[Stranger]

 

     You didn't get back to me when I posted my other reply to all this.  I'm unloved.

 

     So your evidence is comprised of some Hebrew sound-a-like words (ie. Eve sounds like "life-giver" and Seth sounds like "appointed"), which is rather strange considering the circumstances, but no more strange considering the rest.

 

     There is no indication that Eve should imagine that she's looking forward to a singular savior at any point or that she would know what a "savior" is for that matter.  The curse was on the serpent not Adam or Eve even though it would involve them.  In v3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."  This is after the serpent was cursed to go on its belly and eat dust for its whole life and before god turns to punish the woman.

 

     After all that's said and done, they're removed from the garden, a guard is placed (only to keep them from the Tree of Life), and that's that.  That is their punishment.  No mention of beliefs or anything like that.  And nothing that hints at what they should tell others to believe.

 

     In fact, all we have to do is look at what god tells Cain to see what sin is:

 

 

     Why is this gods advice if sin is something inborn?  This doesn't line up with later descriptions of sin.  Why wasn't Cain told of his parents "original" sin?  How that magically tainted him, and everyone and everything else, with sin and that he was now powerless against sin requiring a savior?  None of this happens.  Sin is described as something that can be mastered or ruled over by the individual, and this analogy indicates that it is through sheer force of will and nothing more.

 

     I find it odd that god's "son" (v4:1 "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.'"...not a virgin birth but something's going on...this wouldn't be the first time in history where we have a couple and a god producing offspring) is being lied to or being misled (we are told he turned out to be a murderer and marked somehow).  It seems that Cain may be upset that dad didn't like his offering.

 

     Anyhow, I'm still trying to nail down the whole beliefs thing.  I just had these thoughts and thought I'd toss them in since I didn't get any answer as to what beliefs were what.  Something more to chew on I guess.

 

          mwc

 

 

My apologies.   I probably haven't responded to several posts.  I was unable for a while to get on the forum, so have missed some.  Also after today I will be out of touch till next week sometime.   

 

That Abel brought the correct sacrifice, a blood sacrifice, is proof that Adam and Eve had taught Cain and Abel about God and what was expected.   (Gen.3:21)  God's covering thus required blood.    

 

Sin cannot be mastered.  A believer can sin less as he seeks to walk with the Lord.   Or  he can succumb to sin as he strays away.   And the same can be true for the non-believer also.  Because God created the world and the laws which govern it, even the non-believer , as much as he stays within those laws, can have a productive life here.  

 

I believe the 'virgin birth' is alluded to in (Gen.3:15) in the promise of the 'seed of the woman'.   But, I don't know how much Eve understood it.  But she did know that it would be her seed that destroyed the serpent, Satan.

 

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Then why did you say the following in post 193?

 

 

 

 

Why did you present that as some sort of distinction if you don't really think that there is such a distinction?

 

 

Because there is a difference in the original giving of the revelation or inspiration and the copying of that revelation or inspiration.   Thus there may be copyist mistakes but no error in Scripture.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Thus there may be copyist mistakes but no error in Scripture.

 

 

Level 100 apologetic's reached! Congratulations. Yeah, nah there are errors in it.

 

Reverting back to my previous question:

Remind us all again.. WHAT are we being SAVED from?

[Stranger]

 

 

 

Level 100 apologetic's reached! Congratulations. Yeah, nah there are errors in it.

 

Reverting back to my previous question:

Remind us all again.. WHAT are we being SAVED from?

 

Salvation is being brought back into a right relationship with God.    Sin separated man from God.  God has to deal with the sin question in order to save man.  If man is not saved then he is separated from God forever.  Eternal death.   So man is being saved from eternal death.  

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Eternal death.   So man is being saved from eternal death.  

 

Why is there eternal death? Who decreed such a thing?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Couldn't an omnipotent god figure out some way of dealing with sin that didn't involve eternal torture?  Especially if he's trying to convince the world that he loves everybody?

[mwc]

 

 

My apologies.   I probably haven't responded to several posts.  I was unable for a while to get on the forum, so have missed some.  Also after today I will be out of touch till next week sometime.   

 

That Abel brought the correct sacrifice, a blood sacrifice, is proof that Adam and Eve had taught Cain and Abel about God and what was expected.   (Gen.3:21)  God's covering thus required blood.    

 

Sin cannot be mastered.  A believer can sin less as he seeks to walk with the Lord.   Or  he can succumb to sin as he strays away.   And the same can be true for the non-believer also.  Because God created the world and the laws which govern it, even the non-believer , as much as he stays within those laws, can have a productive life here.  

 

I believe the 'virgin birth' is alluded to in (Gen.3:15) in the promise of the 'seed of the woman'.   But, I don't know how much Eve understood it.  But she did know that it would be her seed that destroyed the serpent, Satan.

 

Stranger

 

     No apologies necessary.  Everyone's keeping you busy here.  I just wanted to get back on your radar.

 

     Why would god say that sin about sin then?  This isn't a prophet making an interpretation or anything of this sort.  These are the words of god describing sin and what a human can do in the face of it.  To say it cannot be mastered contradicts god.  I would think that god chose these words because they perfectly convey what sin is and what our relationship to it is.

 

     The sacrifice is a rather funny thing isn't it?  It seems that Cain and Abel had some form of established religion.  That from the very start a system was in place for people to worship god.  But the bible is less clear on the subject.  According to Genesis 4:26 "To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord." which indicates it wasn't until after this first sacrifice and well after Seth grew up that "people" (I use this term loosely since it's hard to know who all these people were considering how Cain gained a wife that may/may not have been his sister but looks like it was simply some other woman who just appears in the narrative entirely) really started to have any sort of religious tradition.  Maybe Cain and Abel gave it a go that one time but since it ended so tragically it wasn't tried again until this point?

 

     Anyhow, people have been trying to figure this sacrifice thing out for, well, a couple thousand years now.  I know the midrash and one of the non-canonical books on Adam and Eve have them fighting over their sisters.  You see, each was born with a twin sister (that we're not told about but that's never stopped the bible, right?).  So, Cain is born and has a fraternal twin sister and likewise Abel.  So they're supposed to marry one another's twin sister (so Cain gets Abel's sister and vice-versa).  But there's a problem since there's an issue over Cain wanting the prettiest one or something and that is his sister so he won't consent.  So the sacrifice is setup to resolve the whole issue.  And wouldn't you know it?  He loses.  Now he's upset and the whole things plays out as we know it.  Pretty good story.  And, here's the kicker, it's absolutely as accurate as saying that Adam and Eve taught Cain and Abel a sacrificial system that comes later on down the road, is only used here but isn't seen again for I don't know how many pages (translating into potentially hundreds of years) even though it should long be tradition.

 

     Eve didn't understand the whole "seed" thing but she knew that a serpent was Satan?  What Satan entailed?  And that one of her very distant, not immediate, offspring, would destroy Satan?  The very serpent that is never, ever, called Satan (or any other of his common names) in her presence?  Or is ever described in any other terms other than what a regular serpent is described?  And is literally cursed to crawl on its belly and eat dust its entire life as are its offspring?  The supernatural Satan is none of these is it?  If not, then how could Eve possibly understand any of this?  If I were standing there then I would think these things only of the serpent that tempted me and was now being punished along with me.  Unless it were explained to me that something else was going on and even then I think I may not comprehend such a thing without some sort of demonstration.  It would boggle the mind that a serpent could be either a supernatural being or possessed of same especially without knowing what a supernatural being was and what their capabilities were.  At which point I might question why the serpent was punished and not the supernatural being itself.  Cooperation?  Perhaps.  But at no point does the narrative have a fourth party, Satan, receiving punishment for their part in this situation.  Only Adam, Eve and a serpent.  Something is amiss.

 

          mwc

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Because there is a difference in the original giving of the revelation or inspiration and the copying of that revelation or inspiration.   Thus there may be copyist mistakes but no error in Scripture.

 

Stranger

 

Copyist mistakes aren't errors?
 

[JadedAtheist]

 

 

Copyist mistakes aren't errors?
 

They're "alternative scripture".

[Stranger]

 

 

Why is there eternal death? Who decreed such a thing?

 

Of course I am going to Say God did in the Bible.   But, to explain, eternal death is not a decree really.  It is a product of sin.    This has to do with the righteousness of God.  God is righteous and will never be otherwise.  So disobedience immediately calls for a judgement from God.  It cannot be otherwise.  His nature demands it.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Couldn't an omnipotent god figure out some way of dealing with sin that didn't involve eternal torture?  Especially if he's trying to convince the world that he loves everybody?

 

Well, as I mentioned above, no.  Because God's nature will not change.   It is either be saved through the process He has created, because that places the individual in a 'righteous' condition, or be separated from God.   

 

Stranger

[florduh]

Stranger, to believe crazy shit with no evidence is nothing to be proud of. And don't deny the pride one has in assuming he knows the TRUTH and therefore everything else is wrong by default. You actually KNOW nothing but BELIEVE what you have been taught despite evidence that it's false. I hope some day you can see the difference between belief and knowledge.

[JadedAtheist]

 

 

Well, as I mentioned above, no.  Because God's nature will not change.   It is either be saved through the process He has created, because that places the individual in a 'righteous' condition, or be separated from God.   

 

Stranger

So God's nature required people to be saved one way (really multiple ways, depending on whether or not you're a dispensationalist) in the OT and another in the NT? If his nature was consistent, why was the method of salvation inconsistent?

[Stranger]

 

     No apologies necessary.  Everyone's keeping you busy here.  I just wanted to get back on your radar.

 

     Why would god say that sin about sin then?  This isn't a prophet making an interpretation or anything of this sort.  These are the words of god describing sin and what a human can do in the face of it.  To say it cannot be mastered contradicts god.  I would think that god chose these words because they perfectly convey what sin is and what our relationship to it is.

 

     The sacrifice is a rather funny thing isn't it?  It seems that Cain and Abel had some form of established religion.  That from the very start a system was in place for people to worship god.  But the bible is less clear on the subject.  According to Genesis 4:26 "To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord." which indicates it wasn't until after this first sacrifice and well after Seth grew up that "people" (I use this term loosely since it's hard to know who all these people were considering how Cain gained a wife that may/may not have been his sister but looks like it was simply some other woman who just appears in the narrative entirely) really started to have any sort of religious tradition.  Maybe Cain and Abel gave it a go that one time but since it ended so tragically it wasn't tried again until this point?

 

     Anyhow, people have been trying to figure this sacrifice thing out for, well, a couple thousand years now.  I know the midrash and one of the non-canonical books on Adam and Eve have them fighting over their sisters.  You see, each was born with a twin sister (that we're not told about but that's never stopped the bible, right?).  So, Cain is born and has a fraternal twin sister and likewise Abel.  So they're supposed to marry one another's twin sister (so Cain gets Abel's sister and vice-versa).  But there's a problem since there's an issue over Cain wanting the prettiest one or something and that is his sister so he won't consent.  So the sacrifice is setup to resolve the whole issue.  And wouldn't you know it?  He loses.  Now he's upset and the whole things plays out as we know it.  Pretty good story.  And, here's the kicker, it's absolutely as accurate as saying that Adam and Eve taught Cain and Abel a sacrificial system that comes later on down the road, is only used here but isn't seen again for I don't know how many pages (translating into potentially hundreds of years) even though it should long be tradition.

 

     Eve didn't understand the whole "seed" thing but she knew that a serpent was Satan?  What Satan entailed?  And that one of her very distant, not immediate, offspring, would destroy Satan?  The very serpent that is never, ever, called Satan (or any other of his common names) in her presence?  Or is ever described in any other terms other than what a regular serpent is described?  And is literally cursed to crawl on its belly and eat dust its entire life as are its offspring?  The supernatural Satan is none of these is it?  If not, then how could Eve possibly understand any of this?  If I were standing there then I would think these things only of the serpent that tempted me and was now being punished along with me.  Unless it were explained to me that something else was going on and even then I think I may not comprehend such a thing without some sort of demonstration.  It would boggle the mind that a serpent could be either a supernatural being or possessed of same especially without knowing what a supernatural being was and what their capabilities were.  At which point I might question why the serpent was punished and not the supernatural being itself.  Cooperation?  Perhaps.  But at no point does the narrative have a fourth party, Satan, receiving punishment for their part in this situation.  Only Adam, Eve and a serpent.  Something is amiss.

 

          mwc

 

 

Yes yall are.

 

I say sin cannot be mastered because no matter how well even a believers walk with God is, the believer is still a sinner.   We can sin less, but we are still sinners.   

 

Seths line is interesting.  I think I may have touched on the subject here before, but I'm not sure.  In (Jude 14) there is a reference to this line of Seth.  It says there that Enoch is the 7th from Adam.   But, if you count even in just the line of Seth, you will see that Enoch is not the 7th from Adam.   And if you include Cain and his descendants, which you should, because he is from Adam also, then the number grows much larger.   Why would that be.  My answer is God is only counting His people.  Thus Cains line is left out completely.   So Abel was a child of God.  But Cain was not.  So it wouldn't be until another child of God was born and children to him that men began calling on the name of the Lord.  

 

I believe the sacrifice was well understood by Adam and Eve when they saw the deaths of innocent animals to cover them.  And they in turn would certainly pass this on to Cain and Able.   I do not use the Midrash.

 

How much Eve knew about Satan at this time I don't know.  I was simply identifying the serpent as Satan, because Satan was the force behind it.  And the condemnation from God to the serpent was directed at both the serpent and Satan.    Prior to the fall man was just as supernatural as the angels were.  As to exactly what knowledge unfallen Adam and Eve had of Satan, I don't know.   We are not told.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Copyist mistakes aren't errors?
 

 

If there is a copyist mistake, then you can call it a copyist error.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Stranger, to believe crazy shit with no evidence is nothing to be proud of. And don't deny the pride one has in assuming he knows the TRUTH and therefore everything else is wrong by default. You actually KNOW nothing but BELIEVE what you have been taught despite evidence that it's false. I hope some day you can see the difference between belief and knowledge.

 

Well, I don't believe I am proud in knowing God and this truth.  I am very thankful however.   Appreciate your concern.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

So God's nature required people to be saved one way (really multiple ways, depending on whether or not you're a dispensationalist) in the OT and another in the NT? If his nature was consistent, why was the method of salvation inconsistent?

 

I am a dispensationalist.  But, there is always only one way to be saved.  That is faith in the Messiah, the Sacrifice to come who will be Jesus Christ.  Or, in our day, faith in Christ.   The sacrificial system called for believers to look for the Sacrifice to come.  In our day, we look back to the Sacrifice given.

 

Stranger