bgoalie35

jesusismylord, Let me try to clarify for you. People here are doubting your statements about being "born again" because you have raised so many questions and been openly hostile to Christianity. Perhaps you could silence them by saying what it is you DO believe about Christianity. If you do not believe any of it, if you believe it is all a lie, than wouldn't you agree that you are NOT a Christian? I agree with Wayne B., when he states that questions and doubts are fine in certain contexts, and in fact, I believe they are essential for strengthening one's faith. I suppose a person could be perfectly faithful living in ignorance of all the questions raised about Christianity, but how much stronger, how much more useful as an evangelist could you be if you ask yourself all of these questions and find the answers to them? I don't want to condemn people too quickly for asking questions and bringing forth their doubts about Christianity. I think the only reason it has been brought up in this case, jesusismylord, is because you have shifted from topic to topic without ever stopping to directly address the answers given to you on each topic. When a satisfactory answer has been given, you have ignored it and moved on to something new. Try interacting more with the people on this board, and you may get a better response. Just an idea for you to ponder...

mark, I respect you and I enjoy reading your posts, so I don't want to sound critical or offend you here. But I agree with BlindSeeker, that your posts are often a little vague ( or maybe I am just a little dense ) If you could flesh out your arguments a little more, it would be greatly appreciated. As I said, you often have very interesting things to say and I enjoy reading them.

Excellent post. I think that about sums it all up. I also have to apologize for one of my earlier posts where I said I agree with the skeptics about the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. I had never heard many of the defenses offered here, and I will have to seriously reconsider my position on the subject. But, jesusismylord, please take note, although I did not believe in the prophecy, I still do not let that decide my entire faith. If you are looking for a stone foundation of truth and logic to base your faith on and remove all possible doubts, you will not find it. As smallcald said, you will have to start with the resurrection.

You're probably right. He doesn't have to worry about TV, internet, radio, work, etc. I'm not trying to say people who have not heard of Jesus are not saved, or are not in some way connected with God. I'm just saying it has to be a different standard from those who have heard the message of Jesus and either choose to accept or reject it.

Again, we're not trying to offend you here, but it sounds like you have already made up your mind on the subjects at hand. At least twice now, you have brought up an objection to Christianity (Matthew's geneology, Mithras). Your objection has been answered adequately, so you have ignored the answers and moved on to another topic. It seems that you are afraid to acknowledge the answers to your questions on these subjects. If you are truly taking an objective look at these things, why are you afraid of the answers you are getting? As for the prophecy in Isaiah, I agree with the skeptics on this one. I do not believe the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth. The word for virgin in that passage in the original Hebrew usually denotes a "young woman". There is another word entirely for "virgin". The word used could be translated virgin, but if Isaiah really wanted to drive home the point that his subject would be "born of a virgin", instead of "born of a woman", he would probably have used the other word. Does that mean Jesus was really born of a virgin? I don't know. I also don't care. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then I could really care less whether or not Mary was a virgin when Jesus was formed in her womb. But that's just my uneducated opinion, and many others may argue with me on the subject. More importantly for you, are you willing to throw out Christianity entirely over a bad translation from Isaiah that Matthew read in Greek instead of Hebrew? Do you have to have the answer to everything in this world to believe in God and Christ? If so, I don't think you will ever get there, because no one has all the answers to everything in this world. Not atheists, not Muslims, not Christians. Please don't twist my words on this subject. I'm not saying you have to have blind faith in Christianity and just believe, no matter what your doubts are. If you can prove conclusively tomorrow that Christ absolutely did not rise from the dead, then I'll join you in proclaiming Christianity a sham. But no matter what you believe about this world, whether you are an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, you will have to recognize at some point that you do not have all the answers necessary to support your position. At that point, you will have to simply have faith that your worldview, your thoughts on things eternal that cannot be scientifically observed by man, are correct. You will have to gather all the evidence and make your best educated guess. As for Jesus choosing evil: You say if he was really God, he could not choose evil because God cannot choose evil. How human was Christ? How many characteristics of God did he have? Was he omnipotent? Was he omniscient? Could he choose evil? No one really knows for certain the answers to these questions. I think you are overstating your boundaries a little when you say Christ could not choose evil. We do not know how far Christ removed himself from God when he was on this earth. Even if Christ was fully like God while here on Earth, God is omnipotent, so technically, He could choose evil, He may just choose not to. It would not be a very powerful God that did not have basic free will.

if "verbally" hearing about Jesus, is what was intended, than deaf mutes have no chance. its not about verbally hearing, its what the HEART/SPIRIT hears. paul hated christians, and if God didnt regenerate his heart, he would have been blinded by the light, just like his travelling companions on the way to Damascus were. Paul Heard Jesus, becasue his heart was regenerated by God from above to do so. it was NOT ANY EFFORT, on his part at all. nor, is it our effort. no amounts of knowledge will ever lead us to glory. God calls, whom he choses to call, and its not with our permission. blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God. have you ever seen God? I'll answer for you---YES---YOU HAVE. I think we are saying the same thing, but saying it in different ways. A person on a remote island that has never heard of Jesus is not judged and either given salvation or sent to Hell on whether or not they say "I believe Jesus was the Son of God and I have faith in him." Of course they can't confess that, because they have no idea who Jesus is. But Scripture does say that God should be obvious to everyone, and appeals to a conscious implanted in everyone's heart. So, if you have never even heard of Jesus (verbally or otherwise), you are still judged by your heart. Would you agree with that?

I am deeply sorry for your loss, and I cannot imagine how it has effected you. All I could possibly say is that only God can offer any hope at all when confronted with death, whether through the loss of a loved one or facing our own eventual passing from this world. I hope and pray that you can find comfort and healing in God again.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but did you actually read your own posted article? What about that is "grasping at straws"? It looked like a very thorough discussion of the issue at hand to me. I think we will have to agree to disagree about Mithras, but I will warn you that you are in the extreme scholarly minority on this issue. If you will point at specifically what you believe is "grasping at straws", or what specifically still bothers you about Mithras, I will try to address it. Good luck to you, but I don't think you're really giving the evidence an intellectually honest look.

Did you read the information posted by myself and others about Mithras? You did not argue the points made in those posts, you simply said it is historic evidence that Mithras was many years before Christ. I do not argue that the Mithras cult in some ways predates Christianity by hundreds of years (and neither does Mr Mya or others), but I think you need to really look at all the evidence. Did Mithras change forms over the years (was the Mithras of 300 BCE the same as the Mithras of the second century CE)? Did it borrow some things from Christianity rather than Christianity borrowing from it? Are the Christian traditions better understood as rooted in Mithras or rooted in Judaism? Look over the materials and really ask yourself those questions. As for your Christianity, I do not doubt it at all, and I am sorry it was called into question here. I am also a Christian with many doubts about a great many things (the alleged connections to Mithras was one of the things that once bothered me). I pray that the "apologists" here would remember that their task here is to defend the faith and answer to the best of your abilities the questions raised by doubters and non-believers. Attacking the person's motives or faith does not accomplish that goal. It seems very odd to me that anyone asking questions about the world and about Christianity in an "Apologist" forum would be attacked for those questions. This certainly does not set a very good example for the religion you are trying to defend. Please try instead to directly address the individual's questions, with a gentle spirit, understanding that we do not all have faith as strong as yours. I for one certainly do not.

I agree with what Gerioke said about pets, which I think is the point that is driving this thread (or me at least). I don't have a material attachment to my cat. I don't worship him as an idol. You can't compare him to a Ferarri. As dumb as it sounds to many, I have a relationship with my cat. He is a member of my family. He has a personality. He seems to feel, to be happy, lonely, scared, sad. People prescribe prozac to dogs. Why is it we believe we are soulful beings and not simple animals, yet we are OK with seeing the death and end of existence for all of these other seemingly feeling creatures in this world? Mya, your jokes are funny, but they address a real problem. What makes us special? Why do we have a soul, yet other animals on this planet do not? Why do we get to live forever, and they have to die? If you really think life is precious, how can you discriminate all other life besides human life? I'm just trying to get a serious answer to this question. If you don't think its a serious question, consider all of the people in New Orleans who refused to evacuate the city because they were not allowed to take their pets with them. This issue affects many people, and I would like to have an answer for them.

I looked around on the internet some, and I did not find the atheist thread I saw before (this was months ago when I was reading this thread). There are many other articles, essays, theories, etc out there for you to research though. Here is one from a Christian site: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mystery.html I think if you continue to research this topic, you will find that any possible connection between Christ and Mithras can be better understood by placing early Christianity into its Jewish roots, something people often fail to do. Keep researching and make your own mind up for yourself. As for one point you made, the December 25 date for Christmas, there is no doubt at all that this was not original to Christianity. We celebrate the birth of Christ on that day, but it is not the actual birth date. It is a date that was borrowed from other sources much later in the development of Christianity, and it is used simply as a symbolic date to celebrate the birth of Christ. Although, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who would base their entire faith on whether or not Jesus was born on December 25. Personally, I could care less about the date...

I will try to research the Mithraism - Christianity link for you. However, I have even heard some atheist websites dismiss this link as most likely borrowing from Christianity to Mithraism, not the other way around. Like I said, I will try to hunt down some information for you on that topic, but I think your argument is out of date. You raised many other excellent questions about Matthew and other scriptures, and I hope this debate continues. I'm not ducking your questions, I just want to focus on one at a time.

Mark, Just so we can clarify it, You are saying that ATONEMENT for sin is accomplished through sacrificing and shedding of blood. Even after ATONEMENT, you do not have FELLOWSHIP again until you have a true repentance of the heart. So, in answer to Tempest, you are saying that Jesus' death on the cross was an ATONEMENT for all of our sins. We are not sent to hell for our sins, but because we do not have "heart repentance" for our sins. Our sins are already ATONED for, but we have to take the last step with REPENTANCE. Tempest asks why Jesus does not suffer in hell for all time if he is a substitute for us in our sins. Mark's answer is Jesus is a substitute for one step in the process, and we must take the second step on our own. Tempest, I would also point out that there are many figurative metaphors for Hell in the Bible, but I don't know if any of those can be taken literally (and truthfully, no one does unless they've been there. Ask Dante, he'll tell you about it ). As many people on this site would argue, Hell may not necessarily be a PUNISHMENT/TORTURE for sins, as it is a place of separation from God for those who willfully choose not to repent and reconcile themselves with God. Haven't heard from you in a day or two, I'm looking forward to your response. Please make us clarify/correct anything that doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to follow what you are saying, but I did not understand any of that. Can you repost and explain a little fuller? Not trying to be mean, I just really didn't get it. As for the Romans 1 reference, I can't see how people are expected to have faith in Jesus if they have never heard of him. Paul does appeal to God being obvious to everyone, and to the idea that everyone has a God-given conscious that they must follow. But how can salvation for those who have never heard of Jesus rely on faith in Jesus? That just doesn't make any sense.

There is much to say about our resurrection discussion too, but I don't want to get off topic. Lets just address the sacrifice of Jesus and whether or not it was a sufficient sacrifice. That's where this all started in the first place. I want to answer, or at least try to answer, your question.

I would disagree on two counts. One, this thread is about animals, not people. I really like my cat, but I don't think I'm gonna be able to get him to accept Jesus. Two, I don't think even all people have a chance to accept Jesus. Many live and die without ever having heard of him. Paul seems to imply that those people are judged by a different standard, but they certainly do not have the chance to accept the message of Jesus if they have never heard of him.

Maybe it would be best to start a new thread about how essential/true 1,2, and 6 are, and debate it within the forum.

Let me just start my reply here. I think right away I have to point out that you are appealing to "Christian doctorine" about Jesus. There are over 2 billion Christians in this world today, and I would guess that no 2 of them believe exactly the same thing about everything. I don't know what the most popular view of Jesus is, although I would guess that the majority of Christians believe he was omniscient. I do not, and I know many other Christians who do not believe that either. I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that it says "Jesus knew everything." I do know of many places in the Bible where Jesus' followers were very careful to point out that he was not a ghost, not a God man, not a spirit that appeared to be man. They are very careful to point out that he was wholey human. But how human could he have really been if he knew everything? I don't want to get too far off on this point, but I would also point out Matthew 4 (you can't be all that "tempted" if you already know all the answers, not much of a test for an omniscient being), Matthew 8:10, and Mark 5:30 as some scriptures that may argue this point. Whether you believe he was omniscient or not, that is up to the individual. As to why it would matter? If Jesus already knew what was going to happen, you're right, it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice on his part. Feel pain for a day, die for three, then rule the universe. Many people would take that option. If he did not know everything, though, he did not know he would be restored to life. He was willing to lay down his life, without expecting anything in return. Do you really think there is no difference in the level of sacrifice if he didn't already know what he was going to get? 2. Again, I think you need to listen to what others are saying about ATONEMENT and the Jewish system of sacrifice. I won't try to answer your question as to what was sufficient to substitute for sins, because I can't. I would just suggest carefully reading what others are saying on the matter. It seems that you are not impressed with the sacrifice that Jesus gave. You called God a hypocrite at one point, and I think that speaks volumes about your belief on this issue. Would it be fair to say that you believe you do not deserve to be punished for sin? This is a concept I have struggled with before as well. I think this is the first issue you really have to address if you want to get to the point to where you feel that Jesus' sacrifice is adequate. If you believe that sin is not really sin, than you see no difference between God and us, and you see no reason why God should punish us. He is a hypocrite because He sends us to Hell, but he doesn't stay there Himself. If you do believe that sin is important in some theological, cosmic sense, where the universe and God Himself just cannot operate if sin is allowed into His presence, then you see the need for a "Hell", a place where people who choose not to be with God can be freely separated from Him. If you believe in sin, you believe that we are inadequate, and in need of something to intervene on our parts. Then Jesus' sacrifice is appreciated by the ones who really believe that they are saved because of it. Does this make any sense? I'm not sure I'm really getting my point across. Others feel free to feedback please.

TT, Thank you for the response. Your group status says "undecided" and I believe that would be a somewhat accurate description of who I am as well. I have been a Christian for about 10 years now, but in the last two years I have asked serious questions of God and of Christianity. Hopefully I will not engage in "vane exercises in rhetoric." I promise not to ask why you are here or quote you scripture if I can't argue with your logic. And I will try to always be honest and address your questions/comments directly. I will leave the discussions of sacrifice and the Jewish system of atonement to those who know better than me. Its not that I don't think that is important, and I do believe you should listen to their arguments. If you want to fully understand the concept of sacrifice in Christianity, you are going to have to trace it back to its Jewish roots. I'm just too ignorant to help you in that category. Give me time to look over your post and try to answer each of your questions and comments.

I have to disagree here (although I really like WSB's answer, just a personal opinion/preference). First of all, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I am not certain of this, I believe Sheol is the Hebrew word for the grave, not hell. It just simply means dead and buried in the ground with no afterlife context. Am I wrong? Also, I agree you could not believe in an omnipotent God who cannot dwell in hell. However, He may choose not to dwell there. I have heard some people argue this is how we have free will. God chooses to remove himself from our presence, thus allowing us to sin and rebel from Him.

TT, I would propose starting two new threads, as this one has kind of slid off into several other tangents. First, you raise a good question about Jesus' sacrifice, and whether or not he really laid down his life if he just got his life right back three days later. I think if you read back through the posts, there are some good answers mixed in there. I would add to them (or repeat in some cases): 1. Do you think Jesus knew everything that was going to happen? There are stories within the gospels that seem to point to him not knowing everything. Was part of the greatness of Jesus' sacrifice the possibility that he did it, NOT knowing how it was all going to end? 2. You do have to give some consideration to the fact that Jesus was blameless. Under this theological system of justice we have in the Bible, punishment for sin is death. You say Jesus did not really die, as he rose again three days later, so he did not serve the eternal punishment. But you should keep in mind that Jesus also did not deserve any punishment. Anything he took on was more than he deserved, no matter how light or severe the punishment. I would suggest you restart this thread if you still feel your question has not been answered. I would also suggest you study and self-criticize your theory on the resurrection. Your theory is that Jesus was crucified and his embarassed followers made up a story about him rising again to keep their movement going. There are many problems with this theory though. I'll list just a few, and if you are interested, start a new thread and maybe everyone can discuss some of them (or others). I hope this helps, and please feel free to poke holes in my logic. I'd love to have a good discussion about it: 1. If the resurrection was made up, why did the story have women to be the first witnesses of the risen Lord? Women were not even legal witnesses in the first century, and surely the disciples could have come up with a better story than Jesus appearing to this subclass of people. Why not have him first appear to the Twelve? 2. Why is there no story of exactly how Jesus rose from the dead? No disappearing then reappearing body in the tomb, no bright light, no voice from heaven, no dramatic stand up in the tomb, move the stone, and walk out and slay the soldiers standing guard. The stories are simple, with the resurrected Jesus just "showing up". 3. Why did many of the disciples and supposed witnesses to the risen Jesus die for their belief in him? If they KNEW this was a lie, why not just abandon the cause and move on? Who would die for a lie? 4. Why did the early church make the resurrection such a central pillar of their new religion? It was certainly embarassing to claim their leader "rose from the dead". People were not stupid in this time, they knew dead people did not just get up and walk again. Note also from Acts 2 that the early preachers appealed directly to the empty tomb of Jesus. They pointed it out to everyone, that David was still in his grave, but Jesus was risen. It is very difficult to explain the emergence of Christianity without the resurrection. It is THE best thing apologetic Christianity has going for it.

Let me rephrase my question. What is the purpose of other forms of life on this planet? Are they just here for our consumption, offering of sacrifices, observation, etc? Why are all these forms of life doomed to die and return to the dust, when we are awarded the chance for eternal life? Does this seem unfair or even cruel to anyone?

I could not agree more eagleswings. In time, I find that I want the old things less and less, as the new life replaces them with greater meaning and fulfillment. I'm just afraid this thread is getting into the age old faith/works debate. Our conduct should change, and it should reflect Jesus. But our works do not earn our salvation, and it seemed as if the original poster was worried about this. He/she seemed afraid that this or that sin would catch up with them, that grace would not cover a more recent sin (which I do not believe is true). Am I wrong? I guess I've always resolved the faith/works debate this way: If you have true faith, and you really believe in God and accept Jesus, your conduct will begin to change. This changing conduct does not save you, grace does. This seems to worry many believers (and if you read the New Testament it seemed to worry some of the authors too) that people can say "OK, I believe" then thumb their noses at God and get away with their rebellion. I believe God knows the heart of a man or woman, and that is ultimately what matters. Any attempt to judge a person by their outer conduct is just an attempt by human beings to get a grasp on who is "truly saved in their hearts", something I don't think we are capable of doing, giving our limited knowledge, intellect, wisdom, etc.

Does this issue bother anyone else in a moral sense? I am bothered by the possible reality that animals are put on this earth, ultimately doomed to live out an existence similar to ours, but then die and turn to dust. Why are they cursed to live a meaningless existence in a painful world, then die and be no more? Does this cause anyone to worry that we are nothing more than animals? Why should we believe that we have a soul, and they do not (I know the Biblical answer, that we are created in God's image, but I am looking for something more abstract here. Try to answer this question without assuming belief in the Bible ahead of time).

I am new to this forum, so forgive me if I do not speak correctly. The problem with your statement above is that you have taken liberties in interpreting this salvation message. Yes the message comes from God, but the implied assumption comes from you. You have added an assumption to most of the passages. Your first quote, as you intend it, should read "be holy in all your conduct, your salvation rests on it". But the last part is not Biblical, it is assumed and implied by you. Only the last passage seems to imply that salvation rests on the conduct of the person. And, interestingly enough, the last passage does not use the word "conduct". It speaks of "he who does the will of My Father in heaven." If the Father's will is for you to accept the grace given to us by Jesus' sacrifice, then again you could rightly argue that your conduct does not determine your salvation, only your acceptance of Jesus does. Everyone sins, and everyone falls short. Only Jesus makes it right.