How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 Viewers)

[Chaos34]

The word evolutionist sounds odd.

The word evolutionist sounds odd.

It's referring to those who believe in the "Theory" of Evolution. It especially refers to the academics, Teachers, Professors, Scientists, ect.

But they're all wrong? These people who have dedicate their lives to learning and theorizing on a particular issue... are all just wrong and you're right?

They are all wrong and the Creation Scientists who also devote their entire lives to learning and theorizing on different issues are right and you're wrong. They have the advantage of having the Word of God to guide them. Evolutionists have the false religion of Evolution that contradicts the actual evidence. Evolution is actually the Religion of the Atheist. The problem for most people is that they have been brainwashed with Evolution all through School since they were a child and are ignorant of the Creation Science side of the issue, looking at the same evidence. If they saw both sides, they would see the fraud of Evolution, but all evidence that supports Creationism is Censored from School Textbooks. Truth.

And this is why people have issues with evangelical Christians

yup. if his intent is to share the gospel so folks can go to heaven when they die, he thwarts his best intentions

 

[Sleestak]

Where does this thread go when it dies?

 

[BlackCrowes]

Still mad I wasn’t taught evolution in high school

 

[dgreen]

@Paddington Do you think Genesis 1’s primary message is to communicate the science of creation? Or do you think there’s another message that God is communicating?

I don't believe it's technically meant to be a Science book, I believe that it is a History book that contains Scientific items, but the actual Scientific Evidence does support the Bible. Both Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Scientists both look at the same evidence but they come to different conclusions based on that same evidence. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. So if it’s a history book, does that mean you think the reason it was written was to correctly communicate historical facts? Is the primary message one of historicity?

 

[Paddington]

@Paddington Do you think Genesis 1’s primary message is to communicate the science of creation? Or do you think there’s another message that God is communicating?

I don't believe it's technically meant to be a Science book, I believe that it is a History book that contains Scientific items, but the actual Scientific Evidence does support the Bible. Both Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Scientists both look at the same evidence but they come to different conclusions based on that same evidence. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. So if it’s a history book, does that mean you think the reason it was written was to correctly communicate historical facts? Is the primary message one of historicity?

Well, yes, but it also means that the History is supported by the Scientific Evidence. The whole point of the Bible is to give man a History of the origin of the Universe, Creation of Man, The fall of man, The redemption of Man by Jesus Christ and The Way of Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.

 

[dkp993]

The great undeniable truth of circular logic.

 

[Paddington]

The word evolutionist sounds odd.

The word evolutionist sounds odd.

It's referring to those who believe in the "Theory" of Evolution. It especially refers to the academics, Teachers, Professors, Scientists, ect.

But they're all wrong? These people who have dedicate their lives to learning and theorizing on a particular issue... are all just wrong and you're right?

They are all wrong and the Creation Scientists who also devote their entire lives to learning and theorizing on different issues are right and you're wrong. They have the advantage of having the Word of God to guide them. Evolutionists have the false religion of Evolution that contradicts the actual evidence. Evolution is actually the Religion of the Atheist. The problem for most people is that they have been brainwashed with Evolution all through School since they were a child and are ignorant of the Creation Science side of the issue, looking at the same evidence. If they saw both sides, they would see the fraud of Evolution, but all evidence that supports Creationism is Censored from School Textbooks. Truth.

And this is why people have issues with evangelical Christians

yup. if his intent is to share the gospel so folks can go to heaven when they die, he thwarts his best intentions

Thwarts the Gospel by telling the truth? How does that work. It's not my fault if I tell you the Truth as revealed from God Himself and you refuse to believe it. That's on you, not me. My job is to tell you the truth so that when you stand before your Creator, you are without excuse. Secular Historical Non Biblical Writings affirm Jesus Christ and that He died on the Cross and that He was worshipped by those who knew Him and that they believed that He rose from the dead. Jesus Christ fulfilled well over 100 Prophecies written of Him hundreds of years before His birth. These prophecies include when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and many more. Then Christ performed countless miracles to prove who He was, He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again from the dead. He was seen by hundreds of people who were willing to die rather than deny that they saw Him risen from the dead. Had He not risen from the dead, they would not have been willing to die for their faith. Think about that.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes the Bible is 100% true

Ephesians 5:13

Is it true that no one has ever "hated their own body"? Or is this false assertion part of a larger point? How often can this type of thing happen, and the bible remain 100%?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Had He not risen from the dead, they would not have been willing to die for their faith. Think about that.

People dying for their faith are dime a dozen. Should we use this logic to accept all of the cult members that have died for their faith knew the truth? How about Muslin terrorists that have martyred themselves? They must have it right. Think about that.

 

[dgreen]

@Paddington Do you think Genesis 1’s primary message is to communicate the science of creation? Or do you think there’s another message that God is communicating?

I don't believe it's technically meant to be a Science book, I believe that it is a History book that contains Scientific items, but the actual Scientific Evidence does support the Bible. Both Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Scientists both look at the same evidence but they come to different conclusions based on that same evidence. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. So if it’s a history book, does that mean you think the reason it was written was to correctly communicate historical facts? Is the primary message one of historicity?

Well, yes, but it also means that the History is supported by the Scientific Evidence. The whole point of the Bible is to give man a History of the origin of the Universe, Creation of Man, The fall of man, The redemption of Man by Jesus Christ and The Way of Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.

Thanks. How did you reach the conclusion that the whole point is to give man a history?

 

[Zow]

Where does this thread go when it dies?

Back to grammar school.

The capitalization for the point of stressing a word that nonetheless violates basic grammatical principles is driving me nuts.

 

[Paddington]

Yes the Bible is 100% true

Ephesians 5:13

Is it true that no one has ever "hated their own body"? Or is this false assertion part of a larger point? How often can this type of thing happen, and the bible remain 100%?

People don't really hate themselves. They can be unhappy with their situation. The Bible is 100% True. No one really hates theirself. \Everyone wants good things to happen to them. Do you wish for bad things to happen to you or come upon your body? Let's get real here.

 

[Paddington]

Had He not risen from the dead, they would not have been willing to die for their faith. Think about that.

People dying for their faith are dime a dozen. Should we use this logic to accept all of the cult members that have died for their faith knew the truth? How about Muslin terrorists that have martyred themselves? They must have it right. Think about that.

People do die for their faith. But no one would be willing to die for what they know to be a lie. If Christ hadn't really risen from the dead, they would have known it and that it was a lie. There is no way that they would have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie. The cult members who die for their beliefs really believe them, but if they knew they were false, they would not die for them. Think about that.

 

[Paddington]

The great undeniable truth of circular logic.

It's not Circular Logic when you can back up the Bible with the Scientific and Historical Evidence.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes the Bible is 100% true

Ephesians 5:13

Is it true that no one has ever "hated their own body"? Or is this false assertion part of a larger point? How often can this type of thing happen, and the bible remain 100%?

People don't really hate themselves. They can be unhappy with their situation. The Bible is 100% True. No one really hates theirself. \Everyone wants good things to happen to them. Do you wish for bad things to happen to you or come upon your body? Let's get real here.

I guess rocket launches are all frauds, since the sky is so strong. Let's get real!

 

[Paddington]

Yes the Bible is 100% true

Ephesians 5:13

Is it true that no one has ever "hated their own body"? Or is this false assertion part of a larger point? How often can this type of thing happen, and the bible remain 100%?

People don't really hate themselves. They can be unhappy with their situation. The Bible is 100% True. No one really hates theirself. \Everyone wants good things to happen to them. Do you wish for bad things to happen to you or come upon your body? Let's get real here.

I guess rocket launches are all frauds, since the sky is so strong. Let's get real!

Who said that Rocket Launchers were frauds? What are you talking about now? You are making a lot of assumptions.

Here is a better Translation of that passage. You know it wasn't written in English right?

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, firm, like a molten mirror?
- Darby Bible

How did Job know that the Earth hangs in outer space (upon nothing) over 3,000 years ago?

Job 26:7 KJV​

KJV
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, And hangeth the earth upon nothing."

How did Isaiah know that the Earth was round over 3,000 years ago?

Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)​

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Paddington]

@Paddington Do you think Genesis 1’s primary message is to communicate the science of creation? Or do you think there’s another message that God is communicating?

I don't believe it's technically meant to be a Science book, I believe that it is a History book that contains Scientific items, but the actual Scientific Evidence does support the Bible. Both Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Scientists both look at the same evidence but they come to different conclusions based on that same evidence. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. So if it’s a history book, does that mean you think the reason it was written was to correctly communicate historical facts? Is the primary message one of historicity?

Well, yes, but it also means that the History is supported by the Scientific Evidence. The whole point of the Bible is to give man a History of the origin of the Universe, Creation of Man, The fall of man, The redemption of Man by Jesus Christ and The Way of Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.

Thanks. How did you reach the conclusion that the whole point is to give man a history?

I read and studied the Bible for myself.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who said that ...The sky is strong? What are you talking about now?

The linked KJV verse. You know that firmament layer that separates the waters on the ground from the waters in the sky. Where heavenly objects are hung like Christmas tree ornaments. That is unless you read these verses differently than they have been read for a few millennia.

What does Abiogenesis mean to you?

That the process that God baked into creation such that life will appear. Assuming that God isn't a trickster.

 

[Paddington]

Question: What is Abiogenesis? Name of examples of when it has ever been duplicated by a Scientist in a lab.

 

[Paddington]

Who said that ...The sky is strong? What are you talking about now?

The linked KJV verse. You know that firmament layer that separates the waters on the ground from the waters in the sky. Where heavenly objects are hung like Christmas tree ornaments. That is unless you read these verses differently than they have been read for a few millennia.

What does Abiogenesis mean to you?

That the process that God baked into creation such that life will appear. Assuming that God isn't a trickster.

There is actual debate about what is meant by the Firmament that you are referring to. No where in the Bible does it ever say that heavenly objects are hung like Christmas Tre Ornaments. Chapter and verse?

FALSE Abiogenesis is Life coming from non Life. Evolutionary Scientists cannot explain how Life can come from non Life because it's impossible. They are tried to do it, but they can't. So, the same people who want you to believe that it happened naturally, with no help from Scientists, cannot repeat it in perfect conditions in a lab. I'm not the silly one here.

Also, I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how matter and energy can be created from nothing in violation of Scientific Law. According to Scientific Law, it's impossible for anything to exist, yet here we are. Prove me wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I read and studied the Bible for myself.

How did Judas die? Did he first cast his money at the temple? Or buy a field?

No where in the Bible does it ever say that heavenly objects are hung like Christmas Tre Ornaments. Chapter and verse/

Genesis 1

FALSE Abiogenesis is Life coming from non Life

Whether by natural process, or by God, or both this happened. Assuming this isn't a simulation, of course.

I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how matter and energy can be created from nothing i

I'm not sure that nothing has ever been the case. From a belief system perspective there is the presence of God. From a scientific perspective there is the observed virtual particles popping ina and out of existence.

But this is rather dishonest. Your evidence to prove that the bible is supported by scientific evidence seems to be limited to scoffing at what you don't understand. You made the assertions. Proving that I'm ignorant of quantum physics or biology beyond a class last taken in 1979 is not proving anything. Fortunately for you, the KJV isn't one of the 4 legged insect translations.

 

[Scoresman]

The great undeniable truth of circular logic.

It's not Circular Logic when you can back up the Bible with the Scientific and Historical Evidence.

Can you please provide Links to this Scientific and Historical Evidence?

 

[dkp993]

The great undeniable truth of circular logic.

It's not Circular Logic when you can back up the Bible with the Scientific and Historical Evidence.

Can you please provide Links to this Scientific and Historical Evidence?

The Bible obviously

 

[Ridgeback]

Who said that ...The sky is strong? What are you talking about now?

The linked KJV verse. You know that firmament layer that separates the waters on the ground from the waters in the sky. Where heavenly objects are hung like Christmas tree ornaments. That is unless you read these verses differently than they have been read for a few millennia.

What does Abiogenesis mean to you?

That the process that God baked into creation such that life will appear. Assuming that God isn't a trickster.

There is actual debate about what is meant by the Firmament that you are referring to. No where in the Bible does it ever say that heavenly objects are hung like Christmas Tre Ornaments. Chapter and verse?

FALSE Abiogenesis is Life coming from non Life. Evolutionary Scientists cannot explain how Life can come from non Life because it's impossible. They are tried to do it, but they can't. So, the same people who want you to believe that it happened naturally, with no help from Scientists, cannot repeat it in perfect conditions in a lab. I'm not the silly one here.

Also, I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how matter and energy can be created from nothing in violation of Scientific Law. According to Scientific Law, it's impossible for anything to exist, yet here we are. Prove me wrong.

Wow. You actually believe what you're writing?

 

[Captain Cranks]

The Bible is 100% True.

I realize you've convinced yourself of this through confirmation bias and avoidance of conflicting information. However, this isn't going to convince others by simply saying it over and over. Put yourself in other's position for a minute. Imagine I came on a message board you frequent and posted that the only way to get to heaven is by living a righteous life and following the Quran. When asked why I thought this my response is "because the Quran is God's word and it's the Truth". Would that be a compelling argument for you or would you immediately dismiss it as 'this guy is wrong'?

 

[dgreen]

@Paddington Do you think Genesis 1’s primary message is to communicate the science of creation? Or do you think there’s another message that God is communicating?

I don't believe it's technically meant to be a Science book, I believe that it is a History book that contains Scientific items, but the actual Scientific Evidence does support the Bible. Both Creation Scientists and Evolutionary Scientists both look at the same evidence but they come to different conclusions based on that same evidence. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. So if it’s a history book, does that mean you think the reason it was written was to correctly communicate historical facts? Is the primary message one of historicity?

Well, yes, but it also means that the History is supported by the Scientific Evidence. The whole point of the Bible is to give man a History of the origin of the Universe, Creation of Man, The fall of man, The redemption of Man by Jesus Christ and The Way of Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died on the cross and rose from the dead, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.

Thanks. How did you reach the conclusion that the whole point is to give man a history?

I read and studied the Bible for myself.

Thanks. It seems like you have spent quite a bit time studying salvation and how science and history support the Bible. You have developed a pretty strong belief there. Are there any areas related to God and the Bible that you feel less confident in what you believe? Any topics that you want to learn more about?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

I agree, but this is why I tend to just ignore conversations about "Is the Bible true?" The likelihood of that discussion turning into a semantic debate about what assorted speakers mean by "true" is just unacceptably high, and I'm not interested in that sort of discussion.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Question: What is Abiogenesis? Name of examples of when it has ever been duplicated by a Scientist in a lab.

give us a minute. it took several hundred million years the first time.

 

[Captain Cranks]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

I wouldn't know. I'm guessing if surveyed they probably would not. But I'd like to believe that if we look past the description of the faiith and the actions that it would be closer than the survey. But the message of redemption through Jesus' sacrifice being a "get out of hell free" card rather than "free to be people of God" card probably prevails.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

I wouldn't know. I'm guessing if surveyed they probably would not. But I'd like to believe that if we look past the description of the faiith and the actions that it would be closer than the survey. But the message of redemption through Jesus' sacrifice being a "get out of hell free" card rather than "free to be people of God" card probably prevails.

What you said and what Captain Cranks said are two different things. Your claim is that there is a consistent message throughout the Bible teaching us to take care of one another (loving) like God loves us individually. His question then frames it as if this is THE central message. Were you suggesting this lesson as the central lesson? I didn't get that from your comment, but I've been wrong in this place before. In my experience "central message" is a bit off in the design of Biblical teaching. That "central message" depends on where one is at in their journey with God. That is to say, it changes with time and perspective as defined by the individual.

I know no one asked me, but if someone was going to try and pin me down on a central message, I'd likely be forced to simply say "love". It pops up in almost every single story/lesson we are taught. Yes, there are some exceptions. Perhaps that was what you were saying too but I wasn't sure.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

I wouldn't know. I'm guessing if surveyed they probably would not. But I'd like to believe that if we look past the description of the faiith and the actions that it would be closer than the survey. But the message of redemption through Jesus' sacrifice being a "get out of hell free" card rather than "free to be people of God" card probably prevails.

What you said and what Captain Cranks said are two different things. Your claim is that there is a consistent message throughout the Bible teaching us to take care of one another (loving) like God loves us individually. His question then frames it as if this is THE central message. Were you suggesting this lesson as the central lesson? I didn't get that from your comment, but I've been wrong in this place before. In my experience "central message" is a bit off in the design of Biblical teaching. That "central message" depends on where one is at in their journey with God. That is to say, it changes with time and perspective as defined by the individual.

I know no one asked me, but if someone was going to try and pin me down on a central message, I'd likely be forced to simply say "love". It pops up in almost every single story/lesson we are taught. Yes, there are some exceptions. Perhaps that was what you were saying too but I wasn't sure.

My answer was to whether or not most Chirstians agree with me. If I had to bet I would have to go with I don't think they do. In addition to the two choices in the reply, there would also be those that think the central message is being chosen, or being in God's image, or simply John 3:16. But the comment about looking past the description meant to get past these abstract things and into how one lives the message.

But yes "love" is the theme. Love God, love your neighbor. Per the bible, those are ultimately one and the same. We recipricate the love from God, by taking care of his children, one another.
Romans 13:10 says, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law".
Galatians 5:14 says, "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

 

[Navin Johnson]

Oh, I know.

I passed by a billboard the other day that said "Repent. Jesus is coming soon". They've been saying that for over 2,000 years now.

In Noah's day, they were warned for a long time and mocked Noah, but the world was destroyed. Jesus is coming soon, but we need to get ready. Are you ready? Read this first post.

The Noah story is still laughable. A guy in that time period could build a boat large enough to house two of every animal and then he has the resources to actually safely gather every animal?

Heck, that nutbag Ken Ham who built the ark attraction frankly unintentionally proved how ludicrous it is for one to think Noah actually existed and built the ark in the literal sense.

For sure. All of this also speaks nothing to the genetic component issues after the flood or the fact that the ark wouldn’t even be able to carry 2 of every insect species much less all of the animal kingdom. Food? Waste? Water? On and on and on. Fun story, sure. Real? Well laughable is being kind.

Very kind

 

[Navin Johnson]

Where does this thread go when it dies?

He'll just start a new one. Pretty sure there are 4 other identical threads already locked

 

[Navin Johnson]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

 

[Captain Cranks]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

 

[Joe Bryant]

While I would never use the phrase, I believe that the bible is 100% true. That is that I believe that the message consistently, though maybe at times confusingly presented that we should receipricate the love from God by taking care of one another is the way to live. While calling myself a Christian means believing in a few other things at minimum which I need to accept sounds crazy to others, even if 100% of all this other stuff is false, never happened (at least as described), those beliefs of mine are wrong, then the bible's central message that we should take care of on another still survives.

Would most Christians agree that the Bible's central message is that we should take care of one another?

Jesus was asked what is most important.

From Matthew 22. https://www.bible.com/bible/116/MAT.22.NLT

35One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

 

[Navin Johnson]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

 

[Joe Bryant]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

It says we Christians aren't doing a great job of following what Jesus told us to do.

That's an issue with us as a whole and also individually.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

What does it say when those symptoms are absent across the vast majority of non-believers?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like the version from Luke, chapter 10 better as it has the important followup question of "Who is your neighbor?"

Luke 10 | NLT Bible | YouVersion

Jesus Sends Out His Disciples The Lord now chose seventy-two#:1 Some manuscripts read seventy; also in 10:17. other disciples and sent them ahead in pairs to all the towns and places he planned to vi

www.bible.com

25One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
26Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
27The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”
29The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Parable of the Good Samaritan
30Jesus replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.
31 “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. 32A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.
33 “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. 34Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. 35The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’
36 “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.
37The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.”
Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

I think it's one of the most instructive and challenging stories in the bible.

I think what Jesus is saying is that everyone is your neighbor. A Samaritan person in that time to that audience was a despised person. He's saying the guy you don't like is the one showing love to others. I think he's saying "You guys should be like that guy".

The instruction for us is clear. Go love the people. Even and especially those not like you.

And to be fair, "love" doesn't mean join their cause or give up everything you believe. He told us command #1 was to honor God. But it's possible to love and be kind toward a person that you don't agree with. Even though it seems we see too little of that in real life.

 

[Zow]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

What does it say when those symptoms are absent across the vast majority of non-believers?

That they're equally as flawed as believers?

 

[Navin Johnson]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

What does it say when those symptoms are absent across the vast majority of non-believers?

I am sure that the accusation of non-Christians that they are not Christ-like in their everyday lives is going to be a big blow to them, especially when seeing that pointing out the same thing to Christians couldn't make them care less.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

What does it say when those symptoms are absent across the vast majority of non-believers?

That they're equally as flawed as believers?

Yes, exactly. Nobody expects atheists to be perfect human beings. No idea why we would expect otherwise from Christians, or Muslims, or whatever.

 

[Zow]

In theory? Probably. In practice? Obviously not

I would guess that most would state something to the effect of John 3:16 and that the good acts and loving one another are symptoms of faith in Christ, but not the central message.

John 3:16

So what does it say when those symptoms are absent, IME, across the vast majority of believers?

What does it say when those symptoms are absent across the vast majority of non-believers?

That they're equally as flawed as believers?

Yes, exactly. Nobody expects atheists to be perfect human beings. No idea why we would expect otherwise from Christians, or Muslims, or whatever.

I think the nuance lies more so with the believers who blanketly claim a non-believer must be somehow more immoral because they don't have the benefit of Christian principles/Jesus's teachings. Further, the believer likely loses some credibility when he or she cannot even follow the principles/teaching he or she is championing.

I'm not saying this is my personal opinion* or entirely fair to the believer, but I think it's a sentiment worth sharing.

*The lone exception here is I did once have a colleague (who is now a judge himself) tell me he'd never support me for judge despite my qualifications and positive reputation for being ethical simply because as an atheist I cannot be trusted because I have no discernible moral code to guide me and, as an extension, basically no threat from a deity should I choose not to follow any moral code I may have.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I am sure that the accusation of non-Christians that they are not Christ-like in their everyday lives is going to be a big blow to them, especially when seeing that pointing out the same thing to Christians couldn't make them care less.

I've come to not see much value in this opinion since it suggests there are separate standards by which Christians and non-Christians should act. Just because non-Christians don't have an explicit value system they abide by to be better human beings doesn't mean they get to finger point at the imperfections of those that do. Some people suck and don't put much effort into not sucking. Others suck but want to not suck. Others don't suck as bad and and are trying to improve even more. Whether you're Christian or not shouldn't be part of the equation.

 

[Mister CIA]

I think the nuance lies more so with the believers who blanketly claim a non-believer must be somehow more immoral because they don't have the benefit of Christian principles/Jesus's teachings. Further, the believer likely loses some credibility when he or she cannot even follow the principles/teaching he or she is championing.

That's the one!

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the nuance lies more so with the believers who blanketly claim a non-believer must be somehow more immoral because they don't have the benefit of Christian principles/Jesus's teachings. Further, the believer likely loses some credibility when he or she cannot even follow the principles/teaching he or she is championing.

That's the one!

I don't see anyone doing that here. Have I missed anyone claiming a non-believer must be somehow more immoral because they don't have the benefit of Christian principles/Jesus's teachings.

I know lots of people who from what I can tell uphold what I'd call very high morals and they don't share my faith.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

We are in the South and originally sent our son to Catholic school since my wife is Catholic. It was literally a "little country school" and wasn't getting a very good education so we switched him to a touted private school that happened to be Baptist.

It was great ...for about 6 months, until he came home very upset and telling us we were going to hell because we were "EVILUTIONISTS"!

Yeah, I spelled that right.