The Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 5
Blogs > IronManSC |
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On September 11 2013 05:26 sam!zdat wrote: yes, that's how christianity got co-opted by the counterrevolution. 'don't worry if things are unfair in this life, because in heaven everything is fine'. What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "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. C.f. Also 'jesus was good so that means I don't have to be, because nobody is perfect like jesus.' bunch of bullcrap "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21 While we don't "have" to be perfect, because of Christ's work on the cross, that doesn't exempt us from being righteous followers of Christ. However, our works, our righteousness, has no effect on our salvation. As in Ephesians 2:8-9 (above), our works do not save us. Even our faith is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves. We have no boast that it is our works that caused our salvation, as it is exclusively the work of God. "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" - Romans 6:1-2 (and all of Romans 6 really). The Bible is clear that our salvation through Christ does not give us license to sin; however, our motivations to be righteous and do good works no longer stem from an attempt to meet the impossible requirements of the law, but rather our works stem from a desire to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and express our gratitude to Him for all He's done for us. | ||
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:26 Birdie wrote: What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "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. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21 While we don't "have" to be perfect, because of Christ's work on the cross, that doesn't exempt us from being righteous followers of Christ. However, our works, our righteousness, has no effect on our salvation. As in Ephesians 2:8-9 (above), our works do not save us. Even our faith is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves. We have no boast that it is our works that caused our salvation, as it is exclusively the work of God. "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" - Romans 6:1-2 (and all of Romans 6 really). The Bible is clear that our salvation through Christ does not give us license to sin; however, our motivations to be righteous and do good works no longer stem from an attempt to meet the impossible requirements of the law, but rather our works stem from a desire to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and express our gratitude to Him for all He's done for us. Couldn't have said it better myself. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
by unfair I mean economic and social injustice. Don't worry that you're poor and oppressed little christian, in the afterlife you and the tyrant will hold hands and sing kumbaya. Bollocks. 'the messiah comes not only as the redeemer, but also as victor over the antichrist.' as wally b puts it. ( He's just some commie jew though what does he know, right ) | ||
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On September 11 2013 05:26 Birdie wrote: What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "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. No, that would just be more immoral nonsense that doesn't live up to even the standards of prisons in third world countries. In the moral world, we don't punish people when they haven't done anything wrong. Unless you subscribe to divine command theory, a strange little ideology that says that things that we know are immoral are actually moral because God did them. It's considered especially heinous to punish someone for the crimes of their ancestors. | ||
Fumanchu
Canada669 Posts
| ||
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:41 sam!zdat wrote: bah, faith and not works is a bunch of lutheran nonsense. Reduces the whole thing to a bunch of empty piety. Any religion that doesn't make you do something real is a religion not worth having. by unfair I mean economic and social injustice. Don't worry that you're poor and oppressed little christian, in the afterlife you and the tyrant will hold hands and sing kumbaya. Bollocks. 'the messiah comes not only as the redeemer, but also as victor over the antichrist.' as wally b puts it. ( He's just some commie jew though what does he know, right ) You haven't refuted the Bible verses and explanation that I gave, merely told me "bah, nonsense". That's not much of a counter argument On September 11 2013 07:43 shinosai wrote: No, that would just be more immoral nonsense that doesn't live up to even the standards of prisons in third world countries. In the moral world, we don't punish people when they haven't done anything wrong. Unless you subscribe to divine command theory, a strange little ideology that says that things that we know are immoral are actually moral because God did them. So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3:9-31&version=NIV The Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell. Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 11 2013 04:44 Janaan wrote: Here's the thing. You're right in saying that God does not ask every rich person to sell everything and give it all away. You're riight in saying that wealth is a gift from God. But it's no perversion to say that if God himself came down and told you to give it all away and you refusing is in fact loving money more that God. Allow me to explain. Idolatry is, at it's core, taking a good gift from God and putting more worth on it that it really deserves. It's a matter of priorities, and wealth does not and cannot come before God. Therefore, Jesus's command to this man, as God himself, should supercede everything else. The only non-sinful thing to do in that situation is say "Yes, Lord, I will" and do it. Now, the passage doesn't actually say what the Rich Young Ruler did after speaking with Jesus. All we know is that he was saddened. Instead of joyfully doing what God had commanded, he wanted to hold his wealth back from God and say "This is mine, not yours". And THAT is why Jesus asked him to do this. Because he wanted to show the man that even if he had kept the Law at it's face value, he was not prepared to give everything to God and trust God to take care of him. He was holding something back, and that is a sin against God. Also, wealth being a sign of salvation is false. Yes, God will in time give great gifts to his children, but NOWHERE in the bible is that promise part of this life. In God's eyes, a wealthy man is no different from the poorest of the poor. All are sinners and bring nothing to the table. God can just as easily save a rich man as a poor man and there is no guarantee that the poor man's situation will change at all because he knows God. Psalms 128 : 2 You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Galatians 6 : 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. Jeremiah 17 : 10 I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds 2 Corinthians 9 : 8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. Proverbs 28 : 25 A greedy man stirs up strife, but the one who trusts in the Lord will be enriched. On September 11 2013 02:46 KazeHydra wrote: What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God. What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life. Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first. "Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver? I respectfully disagree. I think you have it wrong. All good Christian business owners strive to enrich their businesses. America is the greatest country in the world because it is the best place to do business in the world. Working hard at a business and building your wealth while living a godly life is the epitome of holiness. Jesus came to overturn the Old Testament. He would not ask this man to turn over his wealth on a whim, just to prove that he enjoyed his godly wealth. He does it because he knows the man is inherently sinful. I am not saying that you get to hold onto what God has given you forever. That would be borderline blasphemous. But if the rich man in the story is about rich men in general then Jesus doesn't seem to be making any sense, which is plainly not a correct interpretation. All rich men in this world value their money, because it is meet and right so to do. Why aren't all godly men giving away their money to the poor and spending their entire lives dedicated to spreading the good news? Because that is not what God intended. God intended for the righteous to enjoy their wealth as good stewards. He simply would not single out one man to give up his wealth if it were actually true that being rich made it nigh impossible to go to heaven. Does he not live all people? Including the rich? He does not call on all rich men to give up their wealth and follow him so as to get into heaven. The best, and correct interpretation therefore, is that the rich man in the story was not a godly man. He had to give up his riches to atone for his sins if he wanted to reach heaven. Those who hold onto their misbegotten riches will never make it into heaven, they must give it up, and accept their punishment here on earth to avoid it in hell. | ||
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3:9-31&version=NIV The Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell. Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it. Strawman argument. Which won't work against someone that's rather well schooled in logical fallacies. You imply that I said that "all people in this world have never done anything wrong" when I didn't, and then followed with my conclusion. It seems to be a rather weak attempt at reductio ad absurdem. Yes, the Bible is very clear that all have sinned, but I contest that (A) The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Eternal sentences for finite crime makes no sense, and would of course never pass thru a legal system even if we did have eternal life. and (B) It's not clear that all 6 billion people on the planet have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Unless that crime is "adam and eve were my ancestors" in which case, we don't punish people for the crimes of their ancestors. That's barbaric. So the Bible fails on both counts of morality unless you have some sort of strange divine command theory. But then if you don't believe in divine command theory, which means that you must grant that there is a rule even higher than God's rule. If morality is determined outside of God, you're contradicting the properties that are granted to God by traditional theology. | ||
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
Reaping what you sow is usually referring to your works; do good works and you will have good done unto you, do bad works and you'll have bad done unto you. The Jeremiah and Corinthians passages are also talking about works, rather than material wealth. The Proverbs passage appears to be talking about material wealth, but unfortunately no one is very good at trusting in the Lord While the Bible does promise that God will take care of the material needs of His people, it does not say that they will be wealthy. Indeed, usually the Bible speaks of wealth as being more of a curse than a blessing, because it often creates reliance on wealth instead of reliance on God. Poverty is also usually considered a negative thing; middle class all the way baby! I think the problem with your interpretation of the rich man being told to give up his riches is not that it refers just to him, but rather that you are suggesting that his riches were in some way misbegotten. We have no way of knowing that. What we do know is that Jesus told him that his riches were getting in the way of him and God, and he had to give up his wealth if he wanted to be a follower of Christ. It appears to be that he was unwilling to do so, because he loved his wealth more than he loved God. Certainly you are correct that he didn't follow God's law correctly; no one has. But instead of trying to argue with him on that point, Jesus wisely chose to request of him the one thing that he was unwilling to do: give up his wealth. EDIT On September 11 2013 08:12 shinosai wrote: Strawman argument. Which won't work against someone that's rather well schooled in logical fallacies. You imply that I said that "all people in this world have never done anything wrong" when I didn't, and then followed with my conclusion. It seems to be a rather weak attempt at reductio ad absurdem. Yes, the Bible is very clear that all have sinned, but I contest that (A) The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Eternal sentences for finite crime makes no sense, and would of course never pass thru a legal system even if we did have eternal life. and (B) It's not clear that all 6 billion people on the planet have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Unless that crime is "adam and eve were my ancestors" in which case, we don't punish people for the crimes of their ancestors. That's barbaric. So the Bible fails on both counts of morality unless you have some sort of strange divine command theory. But then if you don't believe in divine command theory, which means that you must grant that there is a rule even higher than God's rule. If morality is determined outside of God, you're contradicting the properties that are granted to God by traditional theology. I wasn't straw-manning you, I was asking a question because I was unsure if you were suggesting that all people in this world have never done anything wrong. It seemed like you MAY think that, so I asked "So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment?" Instead you have clarified that you don't think that all people of this world have done anything wrong worthy of being punished for eternally, which is still fairly well dealt with by what I said. However, to clarify, God considers the tiniest of sins in man's eyes to be a huge black mark against that person who committed that tiniest of sins. Even the slightest sin is immediately worthy of punishment in hell. You see, the minimum requirements for us to reach heaven is perfection. Anything, even the tiniest of sins, which means we are less than that minimum requirement, immediately puts us into debt. And the debtor's prison of sin is hell. All 7* billion people on the planet have sinned, so they all have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. I do believe in divine command theory (that is, that the God of the Bible determines what is moral and what is immoral). And because of that, it is perfectly just for God to punish small sins with eternal punishment. However, I would further contest that there is no one in this world who has only ever done a tiny sin. Rather, everyone in this world continually sins, in every way possible, in thought, word, and deed. We are not dealing with a case of a cent gone missing, but rather millions of dollars worth of debt being accumulated by every person in this world. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:53 Fumanchu wrote: I really hope that this thread continues for a while. As of four months ago, I'm no longer a Christian. I believe that there is a God, but I'm unsure of what His role actually is, now that the world itself is formed. But as a non-believer I now find the Bible way more interesting and easier to discuss. However, I'm still not that well versed in it, so I won't be able to contribute for a time. the bible is a fascinating document and absolutely worth the time spent thinking seriously about it. Now that you don't fetishize it as Divine Truth you might actually learn something interesting from reading it (anybody who thinks it is a monolithic text with a single coherent viewpoint cannot understand it. The bible is not a book it is a library). I highly highly recommend that you watch the free lectures available on both the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu. Absolutely fascinating, and absolutely crucial for anyone who wants to understand the first thing about western civilization. birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples? | ||
KazeHydra
Japan2788 Posts
Although I'd really like to know what "because he knows the man is inherently sinful" is supposed to do for your argument, given that everyone is inherently sinful and is reflective of pretty much nothing in this context. | ||
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote: birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples? Given that we are in a topic addressed to Christians, talking about Christian things, I think it's reasonable that we work off the Bible as the basis for our argument. Not only are you not arguing from the Bible, you're not even attempting to refute anything said. You are not contributing anything to the discussion, but are merely saying that I can twist the Bible to say what I want, and that it's a big book, and then some un-supported claims about pseudo-paul and counterrevolutions. Not only does that lack any meaningful contribution, but it's very poor form for any kind of reasonable discussion among intellectuals. I suggest you not only try to take a stance with arguments stemming from the Bible (or other sources if you really want to), but that you cease trying to cast off contrary positions without every addressing the issue itself. | ||
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
I wasn't straw-manning you, I was asking a question because I was unsure if you were suggesting that all people in this world have never done anything wrong. It seemed like you MAY think that, so I asked "So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment?" Instead you have clarified that you don't think that all people of this world have done anything wrong worthy of being punished for eternally, which is still fairly well dealt with by what I said. However, to clarify, God considers the tiniest of sins in man's eyes to be a huge black mark against that person who committed that tiniest of sins. Even the slightest sin is immediately worthy of punishment in hell. You see, the minimum requirements for us to reach heaven is perfection. Anything, even the tiniest of sins, which means we are less than that minimum requirement, immediately puts us into debt. And the debtor's prison of sin is hell. All 7* billion people on the planet have sinned, so they all have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Warning, rather nsfw and disturbing link ahead: http://www.chinanavis.com/horrible-photos-hospital-incubator-killed-a-chinese-baby-1510011 So what sin is that kid being punished for? Might as well just admit that God is punishing people not necessarily because they have sinned (as some who die are not old enough to sin) but because of the crimes of their ancestors. Which in even the third world country prisons, would be considered immoral. It's nice that you bring up debt, because that's really what it's all about. We 'owed' God because we were such horrible creatures (how dare we exist and stuff), and people realized that it was ridiculous that we were going to hell no matter what. Makes for a rather unpopular religion. Until you get to the New Testament, which fancily enough revived a dying religion. So some people (like Paul) had a really great solution to this problem (why believe in somebody that's gonna punish you no matter what you do). So we can be *forgiven*. But here's the catch. You can't ever pay back the debt. You have the sacrifice, but now you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice. I think the debtor is an excellent analogy, and just more evidence as to why I think God is immoral by secular standards. People are not born into debt anymore in moral, secular society. Only slaves are born into debt. A debt requires consent. As no one (except Christians) consented to the deal, I think it's an immoral one. In the secular, moral world, we would not require you to pay back a debt to a bank for example, if you had never consented to them loaning you anything. | ||
KazeHydra
Japan2788 Posts
| ||
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:52 KazeHydra wrote: shinosai, just curious, what do you mean by "you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice"? Jesus' sacrifice is a gift from God, free of charge. You only have to accept it. If you mean there are "strings attached" and now you must obey all his rules, then, while I would disagree as it is more of a 2-way relationship and not some debt we must pay back, at least I understand what you mean (I'm just unclear atm). What I mean is that it is clear that you haven't escaped the debt. The payment is in the form of 'acceptance.' (And obviously you kind of owe God one for giving you this sweet deal, he sacrificed his son for you, so you *have* to love him) Now obviously if you're Christian this seems totally reasonable, because yay Jesus, but from my perspective, this is just more stuff tacked on to a deal that has no consent from the second party (humanity). edited for clarity. | ||
KazeHydra
Japan2788 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:54 shinosai wrote: What I mean is that it is clear that you haven't escaped the debt. The payment is in the form of 'acceptance.' (And obviously you kind of owe God one for giving you this sweet deal, he sacrificed his son for you, so you *have* to love him) Now obviously if you're Christian this seems totally reasonable, because yay Jesus, but from my perspective, this is just more stuff tacked on to a deal that has no consent from the second party (humanity). edited for clarity. The way I see it, (and I understand and agree that as a Christian, this is a biased yay Jesus view) it is similar to a random stranger coming up to you (let's arbitrarily say you are in debt of 10 million) and offering to give you that money free of charge. If you accept that money, you are no longer in debt, right? The acceptance itself doesn't cost you any money, so there's no payment happening here...like, I'd understand if you take issue with what comes next (loving God, etc.) but if this hypothetical situation occurred, you could technically take the money, forget about the guy, and never pay him back. What did that acceptance really cost you? This might get tangential if we bring in "well now you HAVE to love God" etc. but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Hmm but I understand this stems from your dislike of the idea that we are born with this debt in the first place. I think that's a fair issue, but if we act under that assumption to be true, how is the acceptance of forgiveness a debt in and of itself? On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote: I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:28 KazeHydra wrote: IgnE, if you're just going to nitpick at one part that can be interpreted differently than intended (I admit, it was worded poorly; I should've said "placing the quantity of your wealth as the priority of your life" but maybe you'll twist that wording to something I didn't intend again) and ignore the rest of my and others' arguments and points while rehashing your stance, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere. Although I'd really like to know what "because he knows the man is inherently sinful" is supposed to do for your argument, given that everyone is inherently sinful and is reflective of pretty much nothing in this context. I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. I am arguing that the man is not a godly rich person who built his wealth in righteous ways. Jesus knows the man is inherently sinful, in that he does not deserve the riches he has like other wealthy Christians do. This allows us a third possibility: C) Jesus is asking him to give up his riches to atone for the sin of his misbegotten wealth. We have to read between the lines a bit, but it jives with the rest of the Bible and makes sense, because God wants us to be good stewards of the wealth that he rewards us with when we live godly lives. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote: Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you. You say that Jesus knew the man wouldn't give up his wealth when asked. Who would give up their wealth when asked? Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man? It just makes no sense. Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth? Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk? I think it's because you don't really believe that. | ||
Awesomedrifter
Canada62 Posts
On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote: I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. I am arguing that the man is not a godly rich person who built his wealth in righteous ways. Jesus knows the man is inherently sinful, in that he does not deserve the riches he has like other wealthy Christians do. This allows us a third possibility: C) Jesus is asking him to give up his riches to atone for the sin of his misbegotten wealth. We have to read between the lines a bit, but it jives with the rest of the Bible and makes sense, because God wants us to be good stewards of the wealth that he rewards us with when we live godly lives. But in the book of Acts all christians had to donate all their land and money to the church before joining IIRC Furthermore Jesus did expect his followers forsake everything from what I've read. He says so quite directly at Luke 14:26 even some parables support that view, like how a merchant sells everything for that valuable pearl or a seed must die before if can become a tree and bear fruit. It seems you start with the assumption that god is good and just and then read the bible instead of reading the bible and then coming to the conclusion that god is just from that. The churches I've been to seem to preach a much happier, palatable message than what the bible does, which I find to be a bit unnerving as someone who tried to get into the whole religious thing before. | ||
| ||