The Simplicity Of The Christian Message

[pratt]

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

 

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

 

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

[Guest Furball]

 

 

I simply believe in Christ and go from there.

In india, people simply believe in krishna and go from there.

In tibet, people simply believe in buddha and go from there.

In utah, people simply believe in joseph smith and go from there there. 

In l.a., people simply believe in l. ron hubbard and go from there.

In china, people simply believe in lao tzu and go from there. 

 

What's your point, other than believing in the popular religious cult of your current location in the world?

 

 

 

In all the belief systems you listed, salvation is not achieved by a simple yes, I believe. They are dependent on the person taking steps, following the rules, working their way to God or nirvana or whatever the enlightenment the system promises.

 

 

 1. The religions I listed only require you to believe to be saved. The works they admonish come after the belief, which is the exact same as christianity. The New Testament stresses that without maintaining good works, you will be cut off from your salvation. 

 

2. Christianity is also dependant on taking steps to achieve your salvation. I.E.: Getting Baptized-Making a Confession of Faith-Acknowledging Jesus as Lord Before Others-Not Forsaking God/Jesus-Maintaining Good Works-Never Committing a Single Sin after Hearing the Truth-Repentance-Calling on the Lord. The list of works the new testament proscribes for salvation goes on and on. 

 

You're a baptist, and that particular sect you belong to subscribes to easy believism, or what's known in the evangelical sect as greasy grace. If all we have to do is simply believe, then why then need to to incorporate so many doctrines? It's because you have to obey all those doctrines to be even considered for salvation. Simple belief won't cut it, at least that is what the new testament teaches. 

 

_Peace

[bornagainathiest]

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

 

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

 

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

 

You have the truth of it, Pratt.

 

A truth that Ironhorse seems determined to avoid discussing or even mentioning.

 

Just as Christianity requires a physical Adam, Eve and serpent, so it also requires a creator God to bring everything into existence.  

 

If the universe wasn't caused by God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is a lie, making the rest of the Bible... lies.  

 

Since you want to keep things simple Ironhorse, please address just one verse... Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

I simply believe in Christ and go from there.

In india, people simply believe in krishna and go from there.

In tibet, people simply believe in buddha and go from there.

In utah, people simply believe in joseph smith and go from there there. 

In l.a., people simply believe in l. ron hubbard and go from there.

In china, people simply believe in lao tzu and go from there. 

 

What's your point, other than believing in the popular religious cult of your current location in the world?

 

 

 

In all the belief systems you listed, salvation is not achieved by a simple yes, I believe. They are dependent on the person taking steps, following the rules, working their way to God or nirvana or whatever the enlightenment the system promises.

 

 

 1. The religions I listed only require you to believe to be saved. The works they admonish come after the belief, which is the exact same as christianity. The New Testament stresses that without maintaining good works, you will be cut off from your salvation. 

 

2. Christianity is also dependant on taking steps to achieve your salvation. I.E.: Getting Baptized-Making a Confession of Faith-Acknowledging Jesus as Lord Before Others-Not Forsaking God/Jesus-Maintaining Good Works-Never Committing a Single Sin after Hearing the Truth-Repentance-Calling on the Lord. The list of works the new testament proscribes for salvation goes on and on. 

 

You're a baptist, and that particular sect you belong to subscribes to easy believism, or what's known in the evangelical sect as greasy grace. If all we have to do is simply believe, then why then need to to incorporate so many doctrines? It's because you have to obey all those doctrines to be even considered for salvation. Simple belief won't cut it, at least that is what the new testament teaches. 

 

_Peace

 

Exactly. In the same vein as Furball: If all we have to do is believe, why are evangelicals so bent on making being anti-LGBT a requirement? Lots of gays and lesbians believe that Jesus is their savior.

[rjn]

 

 

 

I simply believe in Christ and go from there.

In india, people simply believe in krishna and go from there.

In tibet, people simply believe in buddha and go from there.

In utah, people simply believe in joseph smith and go from there there. 

In l.a., people simply believe in l. ron hubbard and go from there.

In china, people simply believe in lao tzu and go from there. 

 

What's your point, other than believing in the popular religious cult of your current location in the world?

 

 

 

In all the belief systems you listed, salvation is not achieved by a simple yes, I believe. They are dependent on the person taking steps, following the rules, working their way to God or nirvana or whatever the enlightenment the system promises.

 

 

 1. The religions I listed only require you to believe to be saved. The works they admonish come after the belief, which is the exact same as christianity. The New Testament stresses that without maintaining good works, you will be cut off from your salvation. 

 

2. Christianity is also dependant on taking steps to achieve your salvation. I.E.: Getting Baptized-Making a Confession of Faith-Acknowledging Jesus as Lord Before Others-Not Forsaking God/Jesus-Maintaining Good Works-Never Committing a Single Sin after Hearing the Truth-Repentance-Calling on the Lord. The list of works the new testament proscribes for salvation goes on and on. 

 

You're a baptist, and that particular sect you belong to subscribes to easy believism, or what's known in the evangelical sect as greasy grace. If all we have to do is simply believe, then why then need to to incorporate so many doctrines? It's because you have to obey all those doctrines to be even considered for salvation. Simple belief won't cut it, at least that is what the new testament teaches. 

 

_Peace

 

 

Except this is not true. There's no salvation as such in Hinduism or Buddhism, and Taoism? It's doubtful if that even counts as a religion in the usual sense. I'd say it's a practical philosophical system that has been embellished with religious symbolism, folklore and so on. Stop equating fundamentalist Christianity with "religion" Furball, you're doing this all the time, and it's intellectually dishonest and counter-productive. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

 

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

 

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

 

You have the truth of it, Pratt.

 

A truth that Ironhorse seems determined to avoid discussing or even mentioning.

 

Just as Christianity requires a physical Adam, Eve and serpent, so it also requires a creator God to bring everything into existence.  

 

If the universe wasn't caused by God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is a lie, making the rest of the Bible... lies.  

 

Since you want to keep things simple Ironhorse, please address just one verse... Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

(Bump!)

[ironhorse]

James 2:17 tells us that faith without works is dead. In other words, you still have to work for your salvation. Faith is just what starts the process. The christian religion is no different from any other religion in this regard, despite the protestations of its adherents.

 

 

I do not see the scriptures teaching a salvation by works and faith. The following, I think, is a good commentary on James 2.

 

From: https://carm.org/are-we-saved-faith-alone-or-do-we-need-works-too

 

The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross.  This faith alone saves us.  However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."

 

There is no contradiction.  All you need to do is look at the context.  James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.

 

James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14).  In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith--a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt.  It is empty of life and action.  He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions).

 

Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions.  Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man but not to God.  James writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.

 

In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).  But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.

 

Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul quotes in Rom. 4:3 amongst a host of verses dealing with justification by faith.  James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.

[bornagainathiest]

So, was Paul teaching a contrary doctrine of faith and works when he wrote this to the Phillipians?

 

(My thanks to Ficino for this, btw.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 15 November 2016 - 06:13 AM

ironhorse, on 24 Oct 2016 - 2:15 PM, said:

 

Furball, on 13 Oct 2016 - 7:31 PM, said:

 

ironhorse, on 08 Oct 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

I simply believe in Christ and go from there.

In india, people simply believe in krishna and go from there.

In tibet, people simply believe in buddha and go from there.

In utah, people simply believe in joseph smith and go from there there. 

In l.a., people simply believe in l. ron hubbard and go from there.

In china, people simply believe in lao tzu and go from there. 

 

What's your point, other than believing in the popular religious cult of your current location in the world?

 

 

 

In all the belief systems you listed, salvation is not achieved by a simple yes, I believe. They are dependent on the person taking steps, following the rules, working their way to God or nirvana or whatever the enlightenment the system promises.

 

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”

~ Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

 

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his purpose." Philippians 2:12-13

 

So even if God works in you, you have to perform works in order to attain salvation. The NT gives lots of examples of how believers can screw up. Your attempts to say that Christian salvation does not require "works" are either heresy or conscious lying.

 

Meanwhile, you have not refuted dangitbobby's information about the Hare Krishna movement. And you've offered no evidence for any claim that Hare Krishna is false and Christianity is true.

 

Fail. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why does a Christian who is saved ONLY by faith have to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, Ironhorse?

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

[Jeff]

Haha. So simple it has to be explained.

 

Classic. Always a problem with the context, or meaning, or our understanding, or social norms of the time, or... or...

something.

 

But it is simple of course. Haha

 

Ironically It IS simple when you quit making excuses for the whole steaming mess. Simply bullshit

[bornagainathiest]

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

In future, any re-bumps for his attention will be made here and via the private messaging system.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 28 November 2016 - 05:33 PM

bornagainathiest, on 26 Nov 2016 - 8:17 PM, said:

 

pratt, on 26 Nov 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

 

You have the truth of it, Pratt.

 

A truth that Ironhorse seems determined to avoid discussing or even mentioning.

 

Just as Christianity requires a physical Adam, Eve and serpent, so it also requires a creator God to bring everything into existence.  

 

If the universe wasn't caused by God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is a lie, making the rest of the Bible... lies.  

 

Since you want to keep things simple Ironhorse, please address just one verse... Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

(Bump!)

 

[bornagainathiest]

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse, politely requesting that he answer the highlighted question.

 

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

In future, any re-bumps for his attention will be made here and via the private messaging system.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 28 November 2016 - 05:33 PM

bornagainathiest, on 26 Nov 2016 - 8:17 PM, said:

 

pratt, on 26 Nov 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

 

You have the truth of it, Pratt.

 

A truth that Ironhorse seems determined to avoid discussing or even mentioning.

 

Just as Christianity requires a physical Adam, Eve and serpent, so it also requires a creator God to bring everything into existence.  

 

If the universe wasn't caused by God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is a lie, making the rest of the Bible... lies.  

 

Since you want to keep things simple Ironhorse, please address just one verse... Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

Re-bump!

[bornagainathiest]

This re-re-bump has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse, politely requesting that he answer the highlighted question.

 

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

In future, any re-bumps for his attention will be made here and via the private messaging system.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 28 November 2016 - 05:33 PM

bornagainathiest, on 26 Nov 2016 - 8:17 PM, said:

 

pratt, on 26 Nov 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

met my ex teacher from 1979 during an alumni gathering, and he is froma methodist church of which i was baptised in.

he asked me why i lose my faith, and as IH said, god saved you from your sins and why i don't believe that anymore.

my response: "for hod to die for my sins and my salvation, the premise is: there must be a physical adam and eve and a talking snake, so jesus can die for me. no talking snake no salvation needed"

 

You have the truth of it, Pratt.

 

A truth that Ironhorse seems determined to avoid discussing or even mentioning.

 

Just as Christianity requires a physical Adam, Eve and serpent, so it also requires a creator God to bring everything into existence.  

 

If the universe wasn't caused by God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is a lie, making the rest of the Bible... lies.  

 

Since you want to keep things simple Ironhorse, please address just one verse... Genesis 1 : 1.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

Re-bump!

 

Re-re-bump!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

James 2:17 tells us that faith without works is dead. In other words, you still have to work for your salvation. Faith is just what starts the process. The christian religion is no different from any other religion in this regard, despite the protestations of its adherents.

 

 

I do not see the scriptures teaching a salvation by works and faith.

Is this because you cherry-pick the scriptures, or because you simply don't read them?  Or is there some other reason?  Faith and works are both clearly present in the scripture, as has been pointed out already.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

James 2:17 tells us that faith without works is dead. In other words, you still have to work for your salvation. Faith is just what starts the process. The christian religion is no different from any other religion in this regard, despite the protestations of its adherents.

 

 

I do not see the scriptures teaching a salvation by works and faith.

Is this because you cherry-pick the scriptures, or because you simply don't read them?  Or is there some other reason?  Faith and works are both clearly present in the scripture, as has been pointed out already.

 

 

 

 

This is a fairly clear example of indoctrination controlling belief.  Of course the Bible states faith and works are needed.  It's right in the text, clear as can be.  Whether they are contradictory is not the point.  The point is that both requirements are in the text.  But, if I ignore one or the other, I can pretend only one is required.  More specifically, IH's religious sect/cult promotes a certain dogma - faith, and faith alone, is what is required.  Of course, that sect/cult also has an apologetic for the works part - that after being saved through faith you have to "work" at it to approach that imported Hellenistic perfection.

 

Yes, cherry-picking is the quick identifier of such behavior, and indoctrinated theists like IH are masters at it.  It is part of their training and upbringing.  They are expected to cherry-pick.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I am now keeping count of how many times I have put the following question to Ironhorse, in this thread.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

I am also keeping count of how many times I have sent this question directly to his Inbox.

 

 

 

And this is the number of days since I began doing these things.

 

 

And this is the total number of his responses.

[bornagainathiest]

A copy of post # 115 has just been PMed to Ironhorse's Inbox.

[sdelsolray]

Well, BAA, perhaps your questions are not simple.  They require independent thinking and canned apologetics that IH can cut and paste appear to be nonexistent.  What's can an indoctrinated theist to do with that?

 

Funny, the Christian message is allegedly simple, but basic questions about it are not.

[Jeff]

He's googling for links that you can read that he agrees with and emailing those who can answer these simple faith questions

[♦ ficino ♦]

Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man but not to God.

 

CARM, from which you pasted your post, adds the phrase, "but not to God." That phrase is not in the text. CARM and you are guilty of adding to scripture.

 

That addition is already falsified by the text.

 

"Looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself unspotted by the world make for pure worship without stain before our God and Father." James 1:27

 

Works demonstrate faith to God. God notices them.

 

FAIL. Again.

[Jeff]

Adding to scripture has a pretty stiff penalty if I recall... Ooh that's gonna burn!

[bornagainathiest]

Well, BAA, perhaps your questions are not simple.  They require independent thinking and canned apologetics that IH can cut and paste appear to be nonexistent.  What's can an indoctrinated theist to do with that?

 

Funny, the Christian message is allegedly simple, but basic questions about it are not.

 

So it would seem, sdelsolray.

 

Which raises another (not) simple question.

 

If Ironhorse was asked why he loves Jesus, could he answer that question without mentioning the word... sin?

[bornagainathiest]

 

I am now keeping count of how many times I have put the following question to Ironhorse, in this thread.

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

 

 

I am also keeping count of how many times I have sent this question directly to his Inbox.

 

 

 

And this is the number of days since I began doing these things.

 

 

And this is the total number of his responses.

[bornagainathiest]

The above message was just PMed to Ironhorse in the continuing hope that he will answer the question...

 

Do you deny that your Christian faith requires acceptance of Genesis 1 : 1 as history?

[sdelsolray]

 

Well, BAA, perhaps your questions are not simple.  They require independent thinking and canned apologetics that IH can cut and paste appear to be nonexistent.  What's can an indoctrinated theist to do with that?

 

Funny, the Christian message is allegedly simple, but basic questions about it are not.

 

So it would seem, sdelsolray.

 

Which raises another (not) simple question.

 

If Ironhorse was asked why he loves Jesus, could he answer that question without mentioning the word... sin?

 

 

 

 

I would need him to define the term "love" first.  In my limited experience, Christians have provided many different definitions/explnations for that word/emotion/thought/concept, and many of those descriptions contradict those of other Christians.

 

Yeah, pin him down on "love" first.  However, he'd probably just run to CARM or some other pablum-generating apologetic website, cut and paste and think he's answered the inquiry.

[Lilith666]

Except for when you have to think about everything you do before you do it to check that it glorifies your god, a problem under which a lot of things fall. Is it OK to watch R-rated movies? What about their artistic value, is that a factor? Are you allowed to watch movies or read books or listen to music with cursing? If you do, isn't that causing others to sin by supporting their sinful activities (e.g., using profanity, taking off clothes or kissing someone who isn't their spouse for a film role)? If you're friends with people who do anything around you that you consider sin, are you tainting your spiritual purity? Are you required to tell everyone you meet about Jesus? If you feel uncomfortable doing this, is that denying knowing him and will it cause you to go to hell? If you don't feel like getting up for church in the morning (even if you go anyway), is that a sin for which you must ask forgiveness? What about former Christians - are they going to hell, even if they used to believe sincerely? Are you required not to associate with someone who denies Jesus, in case you get led astray? And on and on and on.

Christianity is so often misrepresented as simple, when its message and the Bible that Christians must follow open the door to so much confusion and ways that one could sin. How do you pack its many interpretations into one clear and cohesive set of instructions?