What do you object to regarding Christianity and Jesus?

[ayin jade]

So, he has to arrange a murder to "pay" for our sins? How does the death of an innocent "pay" for the sins of others, anyway? And if it was death He needed, why not just have Jesus die in his sleep?

Not a murder. Jesus willingly died for our sins. As the blood atonement necessary, He chose to lay down His life to redeem us.

My post here explains that.

Besides, if sin was impuned to everyone by Adam's choice (another non-sensical idea), why wasn't salvation impuned to everybody by Jesus' death? Everyone is stained by Adam, whether they have heard about it or not, but people only get the pardon of Jesus, if they know and embrace this idea.

Salvation is offered to all who wish it. Salvation is available to all. Repentance is important too. One needs to repent and submit to the Lord to be forgiven. Too many don

[ayin jade]

Jesus Christ is the healer of all our diseases.

Except apparently heart disease. (Recall the studies on intercessory prayer.)

Only 1 study, not many studies. Please dont keep repeating untruths. The study was also shown to be flawed, and why. I showed why the study wouldnt fly in the medical community.

[ayin jade]

It's only considered "mythology" because no one believes it. If Christianity wasn't passed down from generation to generation, it too would end up being considered "mythology". In which case, what makes the Jesus story any different than Santa Claus?

The Holy Spirit indwelt in us proves His reality. That there are those who saw Him, saw His works, and His resurrection also proves His reality.

[ayin jade]

It seems that your position is that God could do anything at all and it wouldn't be immoral for him. If that is the case, then it seems that you have set the standard as low as possible for a Deity to qualify as being "good". Now why would you need to do that? Why would you need to set such a low standard for the Christian God?

He has the right to remove the sinner, who is condemned already by their sin. That is not a sin. He is applying the judgment we all face already. That isnt a low standard.

Could you confirm what your position is? Is your position that God could do anything at all and it wouldn't be immoral for him?

With regard to your answer, it seems to be fairly irrelevant to the point being made.

I answered this in another post. See this post.

[ayin jade]

It makes me chuckle slightly, because someone will always post that there are many who will say, "Lord, Lord..." and He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you." But nobody ever thinks they will be the one He's saying he "never knew".

If you have the Holy Spirit in you, you can know. Ephesians 1: 13 in whom also you, hearing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, in whom also believing, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

[ayin jade]

You believe you are saved because you believe you have a relationship with Jesus/God. Right? But even Moslem's believe they are saved and are going to Paradise when they die. They are right according to their holy book and you are right according to yours.

We are right according to our Lord, not just our book.

There is no objective way for anyone to know what will happen to them when they die, even if they fervently believe in their "personal relationship". Christians can't even agree about what I represent: Was I never "really" a Christian in the first place? Am I still "really" a Christian, but I'm in the valley, so I don't see yet that I will come back? Maybe I really was and now I'm really not.

We may not be able to agree with each other on whether or not you were ever really a Christian (although I think the parable of the sower explains you) but we agree and KNOW that the only way is through Jesus. We know that we have eternal life in Him. We know what happens because our Lord told us and it is confirmed through the Holy Spirit. Its ironic that those who don

[secondeve]

Ayin:

You place a lot of emphasis on the Holy Spirit as proof of God, his goodness and his sincerity to man. This is an internal experience, not something which can be externally verified - by which I mean, you can't prove it to me anymore than I could disprove it to you. But proof aside, given that the Holy Spirit is only felt internally by believers, what you are essentially arguing is this: That Christianity is true and God exists purely because people who already believe in both these concepts intuit, feel and otherwise experience internally that this is true. Is this correct?

If so, I have one major problem here. Nobody who is Christian knows whether or not people from different religions experience exactly the same thing and chalk it up to a different deity. By this I mean, onbiously you have faith that this is the case, but in the sense of knowing definitively or being able to prove this to others, you don't and can't. In cases where people have converted from one faith to Christianity, and who then claim that what they felt in their other belief didn't compare, that still isn't representative of the world population or even all other members of the previous religion. The truth is, you assume - or rather, you have faith - that your experience of a living God and a living Holy Spirit is unique to Christianity. Unless or until every single Christian has been as devout a believer in another faith as they are in Christianity, you cannot claim otherwise - and even then, that would still not necessarily represent everyone else.

Essentially, this seems both the weakest and the strongest point of Christianity - strongest, in the sense that because I can't disprove the unprovable, you an effectively say what you like without being categorically gainsaid, and weakest, in the sense that when you back up your faith, you are ultimately asking any non-believer to trust, not in God or a higher power, but in the idea that each and every Christian is able to discern, objectively and without error, which of their own internal experiences are generated by them, and which are not - and further, to trust the idea that they are an exclusive group; that nobody else in the entire world has figured out how to do this; and that every other human of a different faith who claims otherwise is lying.

Is it just me, or is this is a big ask and a little confusing, given that you also believe that human beings are flawed?

[emeraldgirl]

Not a murder. Jesus willingly died for our sins. As the blood atonement necessary, He chose to lay down His life to redeem us.

My post here explains that.

Whatever. I'm not asking what The Bible says...I know all the scriptures about blood atoning and how sin entered the world. God knew He was requiring a standard NO ONE COULD EVER MEET. Blood has to be shed to atone for sin, so you say...I am asking what holds God to some requirement like that? He set up the system in the first place! That is the part that none of you seem to be able to see! You just keep repeating how God is holy, can't contend with sin, blood has to be shed, blah, blah, blah. He has to have absolute righteousness, yet he didn't create us able to attain that. So he "had" to arrange "the perfect sacrafice". WHO SAYS GOD HAS TO DO IT???? That is what I'm saying! WHO is telling God blood has to be shed to "pay" for sins? God has to be the one who makes that rule in the first place. Does anybody get it?

Sorry...I'm getting really aggravated.

We may not be able to agree with each other on whether or not you were ever really a Christian (although I think the parable of the sower explains you) but we agree and KNOW that the only way is through Jesus. We know that we have eternal life in Him. We know what happens because our Lord told us and it is confirmed through the Holy Spirit. Its ironic that those who don

[Copper Scroll]

Not a murder. Jesus willingly died for our sins. As the blood atonement necessary, He chose to lay down His life to redeem us.

My post here explains that.

Whatever. I'm not asking what The Bible says...I know all the scriptures about blood atoning and how sin entered the world. God knew He was requiring a standard NO ONE COULD EVER MEET. Blood has to be shed to atone for sin, so you say...I am asking what holds God to some requirement like that? He set up the system in the first place! That is the part that none of you seem to be able to see! You just keep repeating how God is holy, can't contend with sin, blood has to be shed, blah, blah, blah. He has to have absolute righteousness, yet he didn't create us able to attain that. So he "had" to arrange "the perfect sacrafice". WHO SAYS GOD HAS TO DO IT???? That is what I'm saying! WHO is telling God blood has to be shed to "pay" for sins? God has to be the one who makes that rule in the first place. Does anybody get it?

The piece of this you haven't really answered (correct me if I'm wrong) is that people do have the capacity to meet God's standard of righteousness. The problem is that we consistently fail. Even if those among us who are trying their hardest fail. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done or God did not give us the ability to do it.

[secondeve]

The piece of this you haven't really answered (correct me if I'm wrong) is that people do have the capacity to meet God's standard of righteousness. The problem is that we consistently fail. Even if those among us who are trying their hardest fail. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done or God did not give us the ability to do it.

This makes no sense to me. The Bible says that humans are born sinful, and therefore imperfect. We are incapable of achieving perfection; we are incapable of being without sin. So given taht Jesus was supposedly the only ever exception to this rule, how can you say that we as flawed beings are ever going to be capable of meeting a perfect standard?