EPT
The flight plan
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
paper
13196 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 05:12 paper wrote: i should start going to church again >__>; Oh, what made you stop? To be honest I'd been pretty reluctant to go 'cos I thought to myself it's just the same stuff every week and I'd already been there and done that, but I wanted to go stalk a chick I liked. The speaker turned out to talk about amazing (and sad) things, like what life is like for people who live in that country. The main message was that if you do something for God, even if you fail, nothing is ever wasted. And he went on to talk about how he had intended to be there for six years, but came back after 18 months because it was simply too dangerous for his six year old daughter and nine year old son and his wife and himself - but when their children are older and can take care of themselves he intends to return and try again. What are your thoughts on Christ? Edit: It appears I broke my own rule! It's just too intriguing  | ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
I'm a terrible Christian T-T Occasionally I get the feeling I should go to church regularly and actually read the Book. Then I always come up with lame excuses to not do it. It's somewhat sad. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I don't know the total of your motives for this decision, rebelheart, but I think you should be honest with yourself and ask if its something you should pursue. If you decide church is the only place to get what you crave, more power to ya, I hope you find what you're looking for there. If it isn't, you shouldn't spend more energy, time, money, etc on church. Either way, good luck with all that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 06:38 Tadzio00 wrote: If you believe Jesus was the son of God, then you're a Christian. If you believe, further, that the power establishment that's been built around the idea of Christ as savior is a justified and necessary establishment, then you should go to Christian church. If you're looking to stalk some chick or become a compassionate benefactor of the world's less fortunate peoples, you can do that stuff without being a Christian or going to church. I don't know the total of your motives for this decision, rebelheart, but I think you should be honest with yourself and ask if its something you should pursue. If you decide church is the only place to get what you crave, more power to ya, I hope you find what you're looking for there. If it isn't, you shouldn't spend more energy, time, money, etc on church. Either way, good luck with all that. Cheers, by the way, did you read my post below about Christianity? James 2 (faith without works is useless), Matthew 25 (even Devils believe) and 1 John 3 (if you are not compassionate you don't have God's love) all talk about how Christianity is not about just believing, so your first paragraph is not enough, but thanks for reminding me. I don't think you should make Christianity sound like that though when you are preaching, it's what a lot of Churches say during their services I know but I just think it's wrong to go up to people who don't know God and say "Christianity is about believing that Jesus was the Son of God" because it's not the central point. During Jesus' ministry His message (and all the parables He gave) was about loving your neighbour and not exploiting the poor, and often He told people not to tell others of His miracles, so they could focus on His message, rather than the supernatural aspects of who He was. That's why I kinda disagree with your statement of faith, because arguably you could not believe Jesus was the Son of God, not understand all the religious rules in the Epistles, or read any of the Bible at all, and still be a Christian. Jesus often made an example of people saying to His apostles: "this lady has given more to the temple than all the Pharisees, this tax collector is more worthy than the Pharisee, Lazarus is more worthy than the rich man" - despite them not having a single ounce of knowledge about the requirements of Christianity and the mainstream Church today. And the flipside of that is the rich man who had all the knowledge and knew all the requirements for being a Christian, keeping the commandments and proclaiming that God is true and that Jesus was sent from God, but then was rejected because he didn't want to part with his wealth, in fact was not a Christian and it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. This therefore covers all the people in the world that don't know Jesus (which many non-Christians raise about God being cruel if they're all going to Hell just because they were born into the wrong circumstances), rather than that obscure verse in Romans chapter one which says they are without excuse and therefore must meet the requirements of John 3:16, which has been taken out of context. Edit: Anyhow, I've probably discussed your post way out of the original intention, but I just don't think Christianity is centrally about what you said, and I'm sure you understand all the stuff I'm saying but I think it's important to spell it out anyway. It's all further elaborated here. | ||
|
Aepplet
Sweden2908 Posts
just an alternative. good luck. | ||
|
In)Spire
United States1323 Posts
. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 13:43 In)Spire wrote: Its good that u wanna go to church again. I fully support you man .Thanks, you're very inspiring | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 06:36 Last Romantic wrote: Good on you! I'm a terrible Christian T-T Occasionally I get the feeling I should go to church regularly and actually read the Book. Then I always come up with lame excuses to not do it. It's somewhat sad. Well that doesn't sound terrible  Ya should find an excuse to go next Sunday then  Like there might be someone there you haven't seen for a while, find a gift to give them and say: "I must go to Church next Sunday so I can pass this on"! And maybe an excuse to read the Bible... Like think of something that you're gonna do tomorrow, and then ask yourself if you know what the Bible says about it, like whether it'll give you a new perspective on how to handle the situation (for example, if you have work, do you remember what the Bible says about employers and employees)? Or if you're meeting up with someone, it's always good to re-read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 | ||
|
nofAcedAgent
United States952 Posts
| ||
|
Pressure
7326 Posts
i tried but its pretty hard trying to follow god every day without guidance or something to pump you or inspire you(christ's death on cross) | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 14:48 Pressure wrote: its hard to stick to even after attending a revival i tried but its pretty hard trying to follow god every day without guidance or something to pump you or inspire you(christ's death on cross) That's quite true. Well, I guess we just gotta keep reading the Word. I'll be praying for you. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
There are several popular Christian sects-- Protestants chief among them-- that stress as the basis for the completeness of one's salvation upon the strength of one's belief in Jesus as "lord" and "savior." I have been told on more than one occasion that David Berkowitz, the "son of sam" serial killer, was saved and had a spot reserved for him in heaven, but that Mahatma Ghandi, inventor of non-violent protest and spiritual champion of his people against the tyranny of an imperialist state, would go to hell. Of course, many sects stress that there is more to getting into heaven than just a belief in Jesus as "savior"-- Catholicism has some very strict guidelines for salvation, for instance-- but belief in the divinity of Jesus is definitely among the prerequisites, and it happens to be the first prerequisite. Further, I don't think the stories you reference to argue with me are in contradiction to what I wrote. You may conclude for yourself that Jesus did not want followers of his message to focus on his divine nature, but in the gospel of John, Jesus is reported as having said: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture" (John 10: 9). "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me" (John 10:11, 14). "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26). "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Christianity has a message beyond "Jesus is savior," I'm not denying that. My point is that the message "Jesus is savior" is the only one that's exclusive to Christianity. If you want to help the poor, be good to your neighbor, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, you don't need to be Christian for that. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 15:39 Tadzio00 wrote: I don't really want to get in an argument about this, since it's dodging the point I was making, but I think you're reaching too much to disagree with me. If there is only one binding, defining and unifying characteristic of Christian sects, it is that they believe Jesus is the son of God. You cannot rationally call yourself a Christian and deny the divinity of Jesus. You can call yourself a secularist and still love your neighbor, etc. There are several popular Christian sects-- Protestants chief among them-- that stress as the basis for the completeness of one's salvation upon the strength of one's belief in Jesus as "lord" and "savior." I have been told on more than one occasion that David Berkowitz, the "son of sam" serial killer, was saved and had a spot reserved for him in heaven, but that Mahatma Ghandi, inventor of non-violent protest and spiritual champion of his people against the tyranny of an imperialist state, would go to hell. Of course, many sects stress that there is more to getting into heaven than just a belief in Jesus as "savior"-- Catholicism has some very strict guidelines for salvation, for instance-- but belief in the divinity of Jesus is definitely among the prerequisites, and it happens to be the first prerequisite. Further, I don't think the stories you reference to argue with me are in contradiction to what I wrote. You may conclude for yourself that Jesus did not want followers of his message to focus on his divine nature, but in the gospel of John, Jesus is reported as having said: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture" (John 10: 9). "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me" (John 10:11, 14). "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26). "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Christianity has a message beyond "Jesus is savior," I'm not denying that. My point is that the message "Jesus is savior" is the only one that's exclusive to Christianity. If you want to help the poor, be good to your neighbor, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, you don't need to be Christian for that. Yes I understand what you're saying, but I'm not disagreeing for the sake of arguing. Like the example you gave, I don't know if you believe in that or not but I personally don't agree that just because Ghandi didn't accept Christ he will not be accepted by the Lord. If you read the link I just posted above, it discusses why for people like Berkowitz and Bundy, they're able to accept God because they have committed more serious sins, so clearly feel greater guilt and the need for forgiveness, but this does not reflect the final stages of Jesus' life where one thief asked for forgiveness while the other flat out denied Jesus. Do you know what I'm saying? If someone merely rejects Jesus because they never heard of Him, or didn't pay as much attention to Him, that does not equate them to the thief who rejected and ridiculed Jesus. As for the final verse you quoted, it is true Jesus is the gatekeeper, but this does not necessarily mean the person in question must accept Him. Many of the people in the Gospels did not know Jesus before He saved them. Someone may die and in Heaven although the requirement is to go through Jesus, that does not necessarily mean (in my opinion) that they have to accept Jesus during their lifetime for Him to accept them through the gates of Heaven. This is of course debatable, and I'm biased because my whole family don't know God and if they don't go to Heaven simply because they were raised in the wrong environment, then that would be more my fault for not convincing them enough rather than their denial of Christianity. It's also notable that Protestant Christianity arose from a King who wanted to divorce his wife and thus separate from the Catholic Church which would not allow him to do so, which is much more clearly against the teachings of Jesus, Who said divorce ought only be in the case of adultery or death. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 15:39 Tadzio00 wrote: Christianity has a message beyond "Jesus is savior," I'm not denying that. My point is that the message "Jesus is savior" is the only one that's exclusive to Christianity. If you want to help the poor, be good to your neighbor, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, you don't need to be Christian for that. And I guess that's where I disagree with you. I believe that if you want to help the poor, be good to your neighbour, etc. you're right you don't have to be a Christian for that, but at the same time you don't have to believe Jesus is your Savior to be a Christian. The rich man believed that, but yet could not give away his wealth, so was not accepted by Jesus. On the other hand Lazarus did not understand that, never knew Jesus, lived outside the rich man's door and the dogs licked his wounds, yet was accepted into Abraham's bosom. That goes against contemporary Church teaching that being a good person is not enough to get into Heaven, you must accept Jesus as your Savior. In those scenarios, however, the rich man accepted Jesus was the Son of God, but did not do good works (as per the verses I quoted above, James etc), whereas the poor man (in a sense) was a good man, but did not accept Jesus into his life. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
The parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) isn't specific about what Lazarus did or did not accept about Jesus. Why Lazarus was worthy of heaven isn't mentioned, so I'm not sure how you can come to any conclusion about this. It almost seems like he is allowed entry to counterpoint the rich man's wickedness. The rich man is denied heaven quite specifically for his cruelty and lack of charity. But the rich man's faith, or lack thereof, is never mentioned. I don't see how any of this contradicts the church's stance that belief in Jesus is required for entrance into heaven. Now, I think it's fine that you feel good deeds are enough to gain entrance into heaven. If you believe in God and in heaven you should should believe it in a way that is satisfying to your rational mind. But I think, in this instance, your belief clashes with popular Christian dogma. It's interesting to me that you've drawn your own conclusions about what qualifies a person for heaven-- independent from any church's conclusions. It means you're thinking for yourself, which is a wonderful thing. Keep it up. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 05 2007 22:37 Tadzio00 wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Lazarus never knew Jesus. Can you tell me? I'm not a Bible expert by any stretch of the imagination, but Jesus told the sister of Lazarus, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:25-26) before he resurrected Lazarus. This, to me, implies that Lazarus believed in Jesus. In fact, in (John 11:11) Jesus calls Lazarus a friend which signals to me that far from being ignorant of Jesus and his works, Lazarus actually knew him personally. And certainly, Lazarus' sister, Mary, knew Jesus personally-- she'd washed Jesus' feet with her hair (John 11:2). The parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) isn't specific about what Lazarus did or did not accept about Jesus. Why Lazarus was worthy of heaven isn't mentioned, so I'm not sure how you can come to any conclusion about this. It almost seems like he is allowed entry to counterpoint the rich man's wickedness. The rich man is denied heaven quite specifically for his cruelty and lack of charity. But the rich man's faith, or lack thereof, is never mentioned. I don't see how any of this contradicts the church's stance that belief in Jesus is required for entrance into heaven. Now, I think it's fine that you feel good deeds are enough to gain entrance into heaven. If you believe in God and in heaven you should should believe it in a way that is satisfying to your rational mind. But I think, in this instance, your belief clashes with popular Christian dogma. It's interesting to me that you've drawn your own conclusions about what qualifies a person for heaven-- independent from any church's conclusions. It means you're thinking for yourself, which is a wonderful thing. Keep it up. I think I was being confusing above so I apologise, the rich man I was referring to was the one who came up to Jesus and actually wanted a relationship with Him, and ended up having Jesus say it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into Heaven. As for the parable of Lazarus, I'm just assuming that Lazarus didn't know God but you're right I don't truly have a basis for that assumption. I just kinda see it as that people who do believe in Jesus and do good works, like the quote from Jesus you stated above, will definitely go to Heaven, and He was reassuring them of that. But I don't think it was a blanket statement that the reverse must therefore mean that if you don't know Him you will not go to Heaven, but rather if you don't know Him then it's less certain (because you are less aware of how to be a good person, whereas a Christian knows because they know what the Good Samaratin does and are constantly reminded through the Word). And I know it's about accepting He died for our sins, but I think He died for everyone's sins, I don't think (as explained in my previous blog post) that there's one magical moment where someone can say "my sins are cleansed" after a prayer and they're forgiven forever, it's a change in lifestyle that applies to both Christians (believers) and non-believers, and I would argue the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has the advantage because they have the Bible to guide them, and are more aware of the requirements of being accountable for what they do. When I was a non-Christian I was conscious of the Bible and what it taught and I believe I would have had to feel the full force of my punishment after I died, but my non-Christian friend however who knows nothing about Christianity but for example baked a cake the other day and shared it with me I don't believe would have suffered the same result as me (unless of course there is a darker side to her that I don't know), or my mother, who raised me as a single parent and whose occupation is to look after the disabled on minimum wage almost 24/7 and struggled with these roles. I guess I just personally believe being a good person is enough to get you into Heaven, I have thought about this a lot and the reasons people don't believe in God, and I didn't come to this conclusion just because it's what sounds good. I think we Christians can be part of that reason and I don't think it's fair that so much is circumstantial (like how you were raised, the opportunities you had in life, the disparities in life, etc). Of course the only truth is what God thinks, and I don't claim to reflect God's truth, and still during my lifetime I will try to convert people because ultimately I think it's better to be a Christian than not (not in the pride sense, of course, but just that God will be there for you instead of feeling hopeless). But for God to reject someone on the basis that they didn't believe in Christ because for example as a child their priest felt them up, or say the girls I encouraged to have premarital sex and told them I used to be a Christian and that was bullshit therefore they shouldn't believe that either and talked behind other Christians' backs, well I think the verse that "one who causes others to sin will receive greater punishment" is true, but it doesn't follow then that those who did sin because of that person ought to be punished as it isn't their fault, and kinda like Old Testament thinking where sons were judged by what their fathers did, whereas the NT and Jesus' teachings focus on individuals on an individual basis. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
I think you might be on the right track there. If you really want my thoughts then I think it's great if you are actually going to help the poor, talk is much easier than action, but spreading fairy tales to impressionable people that are looking for answers to their suffering is wrong. Why was it so dangerous for the guy by the way? Was it maybe because Pakistan is a Muslim country and they were getting annoyed by the preachy Christians there? Muslims want to be converted to Christianity just as much as you want to be converted to Islam, which I'm guessing is not at all. Are all Muslims and Jews who lead good lives following their own religion but reject Christ joining Gandhi in hell too? | ||
|
fuglyfrog
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 00:27 boghat wrote: If you really want my thoughts then I think it's great if you are actually going to help the poor, talk is much easier than action, but spreading fairy tales to impressionable people that are looking for answers to their suffering is wrong. Quite true, but as Jesus states: "man can not live on bread alone, but needs the Word of God". Feeding people is only a part of helping them, but if you don't change their lifestyles they'll never get better and will only remain dependent on the wrong things. The missionary who gave the sermon went to Pakistan because the local schools were short of teachers (he and his wife filled the role of five teachers). Their school was attacked by Muslims with machine guns because they knew there were Christian teachers there (under their law, a Muslim is allowed to kill a Christian and not be subject to punishment), many were killed but for some reason their group of children survived because the room they were in was locked when the attack started and the attackers didn't bother breaking the door in. Edit: Apparently the law is not as I wrote - see below. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 02:22 fuglyfrog wrote: gl hf gg Re? | ||
|
fuglyfrog
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On August 06 2007 04:37 RebelHeart wrote: (under their law, a Muslim is allowed to kill a Christian and not be subject to punishment) I'm sorry, but this is a lie. A bigoted lie that shouldn't go unchallenged. There is no clause in Pakistani law for murder that may acquit a defendant if he is Muslim and his victim is Christian. I have no doubt that being a Christian in Pakistan can be dangerous, particularly for a proselytizer, but Muslims cannot kill Christians free from punishment under the law (whether the law is enforced is another question, but I digress). There was a fairly famous case that received some news attention in the West back in 2004. A Pakistani police officer, named Faryad Ali, brutally murdered Samuel Masih, a Christian that was awaiting trial for blasphemy (he had heaped garden rubbish against the wall of a mosque), a crime that in Pakistan carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison. Blaspheming the Quran can carry a life sentence and blaspheming Muhammad the death penalty. Whether these penalties-- or even the laws themselves-- are just can and should, imo, be argued, but vigilantism isn't how the penalties are carried out. Ali was immediately jailed and charged with Masih's Qalt-i-Amd, or intentional murder. Qalt-i-Amd in Pakistan is punishable by Qasis: punishment by way of similar damage as the convict caused to the deceased. Qasis may be carried out by the Wali: chosen from the victim's relatives, or by the state. If a Pakistani Muslim is known to have murdered a Christian and the crime goes uncharged and unpunished, that is a corruption or failure of law, not an implementation of law. This is an important distinction. You don't need to lie about the severity of the conditions that Christians face in Pakistan to illicit sympathy for their hardships. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 06:14 Tadzio00 wrote: I'm sorry, but this is a lie. A bigoted lie that shouldn't go unchallenged. There is no clause in Pakistani law for murder that may acquit a defendant if he is Muslim and his victim is Christian. I have no doubt that being a Christian in Pakistan can be dangerous, particularly for a proselytizer, but Muslims cannot kill Christians free from punishment under the law (whether the law is enforced is another question, but I digress). There was a fairly famous case that received some news attention in the West back in 2004. A Pakistani police officer, named Faryad Ali, brutally murdered Samuel Masih, a Christian that was awaiting trial for blasphemy (he had heaped garden rubbish against the wall of a mosque), a crime that in Pakistan carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison. Blaspheming the Quran can carry a life sentence and blaspheming Muhammad the death penalty. Whether these penalties-- or even the laws themselves-- are just can and should, imo, be argued, but vigilantism isn't how the penalties are carried out. Ali was immediately jailed and charged with Masih's Qalt-i-Amd, or intentional murder. Qalt-i-Amd in Pakistan is punishable by Qasis: punishment by way of similar damage as the convict caused to the deceased. Qasis may be carried out by the Wali: chosen from the victim's relatives, or by the state. If a Pakistani Muslim is known to have murdered a Christian and the crime goes uncharged and unpunished, that is a corruption or failure of law, not an implementation of law. This is an important distinction. You don't need to lie about the severity of the conditions that Christians face in Pakistan to illicit sympathy for their hardships. Oh, well I'm sorry for getting it wrong but I was simply restating what the speaker told us, so whether or not he intended to lie I don't know. But he said one of his Muslim friends' friend converted and was beaten to death by his family and that it was allowed, and used it as an example of why he believed Islam is not a peaceful religion (I haven't read the Korean myself but I know Christians shouldn't be quick to judge considering our history with the Crusades and Ireland). He didn't even want to mention his friend's name in case there was a Muslim in the congregation who would relay that information back to Pakistan, but he also cited other cases such as a nurse being beaten and how they have to have secret prayer meetings. If you want you can write to him to straighten this out and tell him he got the law wrong, his name was Tom Scott and the Church e-mail address is office@stchristophers.org.nz. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On August 06 2007 07:19 RebelHeart wrote: Bah, Quaran, that is (I hope I spelt it right). lol. It has multiple spellings because it's not written in the roman alphabet. The most popular spellings in english are Koran, Quran, and Qu'ran. I'm not going to write your admired speaker. I have a feeling he told you that the people killing Christian-convert family members were not punished and you took it to mean that their actions were lawful. Probably, the crimes were ignored for cultural or corrupt reasons. If the speaker actually said the murder was lawful his whole message should be considered suspect. If his message was that Islam is a religion built on a foundation of violence, that should be a strong signal that he's looking at things through tunnel vision. However, writing someone from NZ whom I've never spoken to and who's message I've never heard or seen first-hand isn't an activity I value. Let him spread his hate-- and his love-- as he likes. If his audience cares about the message, they'll investigate to find truth. | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On August 05 2007 13:17 Aepplet wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism just an alternative. good luck. word | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On August 06 2007 12:23 HeadBangaa wrote: Tadzio00 2 - 0 Rebelhart HeadBangaa - forfeit? | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
| ||
| ||
