Christian Club

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here Here. I believe in Christs teachings but Im not convinced he was God . What does that make me?

probably less christian than a muslim
even many of them say that he was a prophet

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again, as a student of history, I know he was not born in 0 A.D but probably half a century later - this fact does not shake my belief in the message. The message is good and true.

a half century later?
can you give me a credible link of this serious claim?

[Don Corleone]

Actually, based on His being born during the Augustinian census, He would have been born between 7 and 4 BC. And there was no '0 AD'. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD. 1AD means anno dominai, year of our Lord, not after death.

[Kagemusha]

I am a Christian and I feel the same.

Im also a christian,evangelic Lutherian.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, based on His being born during the Augustinian census, He would have been born between 7 and 4 BC. And there was no '0 AD'. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD. 1AD means anno dominai, year of our Lord, not after death.

some historian you are, al...

[Lazul]

so, lots of religius folks in one place, got some question;

How do you defend the formation of a christian church when Jesus never said himself that a church should be founded in his and "the fathers" name?

How do you defend the overwhelming wealth of the churches (specially the catholic) when self sacrifice and helping the poor to a large extent is the greatest way of showing your faith?

It is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich/wealthy person to enter heaven. Your Jesus said that, what do you make of it?

I have no intention to bash your religion, just want to know what you think.

[Strike For The South]

May i join i beilve im a christian (does southern baptisit count ) i would like to be part of this

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey Alro, long time.

Do you play any games anymore?

[rasoforos]

If this can be of any help, I dont want to sound arrogant:

Please try not to be intollerant of eachother. This thread looks more like different Christian dogmas fighting for dominance than a Christian club. Find peace and tollerance among yourselves and then embrace the rest of us

Something, with all due respect, from a non Christian. Hope it helps.

[Don Corleone]

so, lots of religius folks in one place, got some question;

How do you defend the formation of a christian church when Jesus never said himself that a church should be founded in his and "the fathers" name?

Do the words "Peter, you are my rock, and upon you I will build my church" ring a bell?

How do you defend the overwhelming wealth of the churches (specially the catholic) when self sacrifice and helping the poor to a large extent is the greatest way of showing your faith?

I cannot. This is one of several important reasons I am no longer Catholic. I personally don't want to wake up to find myself at Judgement Day, and look at Jesus and say "Uh, yeah, about helping poor people.... I always meant to get around to it". If you also believe in ending poverty, and not just flinging mud, skip your next Friday night out and send the money here: Ending Hunger, one cow at a time

It is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich/wealthy person to enter heaven. Your Jesus said that, what do you make of it?

No man can serve two masters. He will come to love one and hate the other. If you give yourself over to the pursuit of wealth, you will find it impossible to follow the teachings of Christ. I agree with this, and I'd hardly call myself rich or dedicated to worldly wealth. Other than implying otherwise, what's your point?

[ICantSpellDawg]

No man can serve two masters. He will come to love one and hate the other. If you give yourself over to the pursuit of wealth, you will find it impossible to follow the teachings of Christ. I agree with this, and I'd hardly call myself rich or dedicated to worldly wealth. Other than implying otherwise, what's your point?

i have never taken the camel analogy to mean "people should never be rich"

i have always taken it to mean that a camel going through the eye of a needle will pass through more easily without hefty, gold filled saddlebags on its sides

or more accurately - wealth doesn't follow you into heaven
to pass through the needle you must leave it behind

in addition, spending ones life in pursuit of wealth tends to lead to an ignorance of altruism. massive amounts of wealth, while not necessarily so, tend to show a priority of self-service.

i don't believe that the bible really has anything against wealth in general. modesty it is big on, but you can be wealthy and modest if you are a good and gifted person.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do the words "Peter, you are my rock, and upon you I will build my church" ring a bell?

But does he mean literally ? I dont believe so.

Matthew 6:25-34 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

Do Not Worry
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Jesus careed not for wordly things ike a church. His words are the church that carry on in his spirit. His words are what he wanted us to believe and spread. I think he would be appalled at most christains today and the churches. Most of all those rich bastards on TV. He says if you lead a good life all will be provided for you. This world is not important enough to even worry about.

[Alrowan]

ok here is the long short of it

Jesus came into the world not to condem the world, but to save the world

so how did he save the world then?

by living and dying as a perfect sacrifice, and raising from the dead 3 days later having conquered sin and death.

In the beginning God created man, but man rebeled against gods commands, and thus Sin was created, and man was pushed forever from Gods side, because they became unclean and unrighteous, and god being holy cannot tollerate unrighteousness.
Yet through the old testament we see God promising to restore mans relationship with god, that we would once again enjoy the prospect of a relationship with him.

Enter Jesus.
Imagine that you have a disease when you are getting off a plane to another country, they quarrentine you, to keep you seperate so as not to spread that disease, and the only way out is to have that disease cured. Thats a bit like how we are with God, we have this diesease called Sin, and because of that we cant gain access to God, though through the cure for the disease (christs death and resurection) we are made clean again, and righteous in gods sight. Jesus came and he took on ALL OUR SIN when he died on that cross because he was RIGHTEOUS and had done no wrong. He paid the price of sin, which is death and damnation that we might enjoy righteousness in Gods eyes and have eternal life.

To not beleive that christ has died for you, for your sins and for mankinds sins, is to reject the gift that God has offered us all, so freely and so full of grace, and thus reject God himself. So to call onself a christian, you must beleive that jesus has died for our sins, and that through him we are made righteous. Thats not a bad deal if you ask me too, seeing as the alternative isnt very pleasant at all.

Jesus died for EVERYONE, not just me, or a select few, heck St. Paul was a murderer, a mass murderer and look what Gods love did for him, and through paul Gods word was able to reach thousands.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

To not beleive that christ has died for you, for your sins and for mankinds sins, is to reject the gift that God has offered us all,

I dont reject that. I just dont BELIEVE he was god no matter how hard I try. Or as much as I wish . Its not that simple. You cant make yourself believe things. Your just fooling yourself then. Do I think he may have been or that it is likely he was. In that case my answer is a clear yes. What I think and what I believe are not always the same.

The same goes for evolution. I think its right but I dont BELIVE it is. Its just the best answer we have up until now. In other words Im a Doubting Thomas.

[Alrowan]

as for the church, i agree that all of it has become rather polticised and religicised, taking away fromt he basis of it all, faith.

When jesus said to peter "you are a rock.. " he was refferring to the church, but not to the institution of church, rather that "when two or more are gathered in my name, so to am i there" for that is actually correctly what is meant by the term of church. Peters role was to unite christians in fellowship, to give them a sense of one world family, not create a political entitiy, that was done by rome under constantine.

The idea of congregating with other believes was to encourage and support one another, to help eachother grow in thier relationships with christ and to worship him freely. its a lot harder for someone to be alone and struggle with the trials that surround them as compared to someone who has the support of his fellow believers




OT and hey panz, going well, still playing some EQ2, though i might pick up RTW if BI is any good

[Alrowan]

I dont reject that. I just dont BELIEVE he was god no matter how hard I try. Or as much as I wish . Its not that simple. You cant make yourself believe things. Your just fooling yourself then. Do I think he may have been or that it is likely he was. In that case my answer is a clear yes. What I think and what I believe are not always the same.

The same goes for evolution. I think its right but I dont BELIVE it is. Its just the best answer we have up until now. In other words Im a Doubting Thomas.

beleiveing jesus is god is confusing, and even most people who accept what christ has done for them struggle with this, even i do. thoughthinking he may have been or likely was is a good step, the believeing comes from faith, faith in God and what his word says, its not so much beleiveing he was god, but having faith he was god i guess, argh its all so confusing still!

[Husar]

What are your views on salvation? Do you take a 'faith alone' perspective, like the Baptists? That even John Wayne Gacey, who claimed to accept Christ while in prison, was saved? I don't. It must be that Catholic upbringing (I'm Methodist now) but I just cannot accept that a God who is infinite justice would reward a sadistic SOB like that. I believe Christ earned you your salvation, but if you're not careful, you can un-earn it.

What about one of the guys who were crucified next to Jesus? If he should be punished for his "big" sin, shouldn´t everybody be punished for every "little" sin? If you just sin one time in your life but don´t accept Jesus as your saviour, you won´t get to heaven, but if you kill people in masses and come to god in the end, you can be saved. But that does not mean you can fool god by sinning all your life and then coming back in the end to get to heaven, it depends on honesty. God also loves sinners, but he can´t save them because that would not be just, he even loves this guy you are talking of(dunno what he did, but it doesn´t really matter).

I´d even go as far as saying that if someone is afraid of being killed(yes, I admit I am more or less), he´s got a problem, look at Paul, he said several times that he would like to die to get into heaven, he was eagerly awaiting it, but he left the decision to god(suicide is not an option).

[Roark]

My $0.02 is that Jesus gave only one commandment which is comparable in importance to those found in Mosaic law: Love one another.

I feel that people who actively strive to love those around them on a day-to-day basis, are the most demonstrative of the Christian ethos.

Maybe it's heretical or baseless or something, but I feel that a just God would look kindly upon someone who lived in this way but had not been exposed to the Gospels, or who was mentally unable to incorporate modern christian dogma. Like Gawain, some people's minds just totally rebel against the idea of Jesus being Divine. I don't blame them in many cases.

What if your only exposure to the Gospel was through some crazy sandwichboard-wearing street preacher, and you dismissed his message (as most people would)? Does that count as "rejecting the Word of God"?

Paul mentions in Romans something to the effect of "those who are outside of the law shall not be judged by it". I take this to mean that God doesn't condemn people purely because of their "ignorance" (meaning lack of knowledge, and not as a slur).

I understand the importance of evangelism in the modern church, but I think that people who simply live lives that are self-sacrificing, and for the benefit of others, are the most "Christian" among us.

If the afterlife isn't some colossal group conscious self-duping (and I don't believe it is), then these are the kind of people who I would expect to be there. After all, they are truly obeying Christ's one commandment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My $0.02 is that Jesus gave only one commandment which is comparable in importance to those found in Mosaic law: Love one another.

I feel that people who actively strive to love those around them on a day-to-day basis, are the most demonstrative of the Christian ethos.

Maybe it's heretical or baseless or something, but I feel that a just God would look kindly upon someone who lived in this way but had not been exposed to the Gospels, or who was mentally unable to incorporate modern christian dogma. Like Gawain, some people's minds just totally rebel against the idea of Jesus being Divine. I don't blame them in many cases.

What if your only exposure to the Gospel was through some crazy sandwichboard-wearing street preacher, and you dismissed his message (as most people would)? Does that count as "rejecting the Word of God"?

Paul mentions in Romans something to the effect of "those who are outside of the law shall not be judged by it". I take this to mean that God doesn't condemn people purely because of their "ignorance" (meaning lack of knowledge, and not as a slur).

I understand the importance of evangelism in the modern church, but I think that people who simply live lives that are self-sacrificing, and for the benefit of others, are the most "Christian" among us.

If the afterlife isn't some colossal group conscious self-duping (and I don't believe it is), then these are the kind of people who I would expect to be there. After all, they are truly obeying Christ's one commandment.

i dont believe that it was the "one" commandment
i think that it was a supplement to the previous ten that he adamantly espoused

the "golden" rule was just the one that helped to promote the original 10 so that people didn't get lost in the letter of the law and could better understand the method to the madness

one line is not capable of moral direction in any way

"do unto others..." is very vague and strange
it really depends on "what you would have them do unto you"

[Roark]

i dont believe that it was the "one" commandment
i think that it was a supplement to the previous ten that he adamantly espoused

I say it was Christ's "one", because the ten commandments are attributed to Moses. I'm not suggesting that he didn't agree with following the ten Commandments, but he made it clear that his message superceded the original Mosaic law.

the "golden" rule was just the one that the other original 10 helped to promote

I'm not sure what this means. Could you please elaborate?

one line is not capable of moral direction in any way

This I must disagree with. Whilst there are situations that it can't possibly cover, "Love one another" (whilst sometimes hard to follow) is a pretty easy instruction to understand. Whilst simple, it can provide guidance in a broad range of situations.

"do unto others..." is very vague and strange
it really depends on "what you would have them do unto you"

Now I think you might be hairsplitting. Generally, we humans prefer people to be nice to us, and the instruction is centred around this (pretty obvious) fact.

Regarding the Golden Rule, I think it significant that it features in all major religions around the world. I include the following only as a point of interest:

Baha'i
'Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.'
BAHA'ULLAH, Tablets of Baha'ullah, 71

Buddhism
'Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.'
UDANA-VARGA, 5:18

Christianity
'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.'
JESUS, Matthew 7:12

Confucianism
'Do unto other what you would have them do unto you.'
Analects 15:23

Hinduism
'This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.'
Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam
'No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.'
SUNNAH

Jainism
'In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.'
LORD MAHAVIRA, 24th Tirthankara

Judaism
'What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the law: all the rest is commentary.'
Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American
'Respect for all life is the foundation.'
The Great Law of Peace

Sikhism
'Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.'
Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

Zoroastrianism
'That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.'
Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5