Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Graknorke]

But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.

[origamiscienceguy]

But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.

No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.

[Bohandas]

Has anubody else noticed that Sagittarius A-Star fits most of the criteria for being Azathoth?

[Graknorke]

But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.

No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.

But the gospel is specifically the teachings of Christ. How could they have heard it before he was even around?

[origamiscienceguy]

But they were still given the teachings of Christ right? And since those happened after they died (duh) it must be possible to change after death.

No. They believed in God's promise to send a savior while they were still alive. (God made the promise right after the fall) So they were already saved for the same reason that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.

But the gospel is specifically the teachings of Christ. How could they have heard it before he was even around?

Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.

[Rolepgeek]

Why?

[Graknorke]

Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.

That's not what the verse says though. It specifically says that the gospel was preached to them.

[origamiscienceguy]

"Why" is a very broad question. Could you please narrow down what you are asking?

[Rolepgeek]

Why does believing that Jesus is my Savior matter, but following His teachings doesn't?

I can believe that Jesus was real, and if I'd been raised differently, I could believe he performed miracles and etc., and came down to Earth to be my Savior and relieve me of my sins...but he already did that. Like, 2000 years ago. Why shouldn't I sin now; not sinning would be making his sacrifice meaningless on a personal level. Why is it that it is more important to 'Believe' than it is to practice what is preached?

Why would God punish people who acted in accordance with His principles, though they did not realize, or did not believe for other reasons (trauma, say, at the hands of people purporting to be Christians, that leads to an irrational fear of Christianity), yet those who Believe are saved, regardless of whether they were actually living as good Christians?

Please don't say that only people who believe can act in accordance with his principles, as I find that to be a cop-out answer that does not sufficiently answer the question, and please do not say that those who do not live in a Christian way obviously don't believe, as Cognitive Dissonance is a thing that exists and is scientifically proven.

[origamiscienceguy]

Listening to the teaching of christ doesn't save you. Believing in Jesus the savior does.

That's not what the verse says though. It specifically says that the gospel was preached to them.

To those who are now dead. So they heard it, then died. They didn't hear it while dead.

EDIT: His teachings do matter, but being alive to physically hear them doesn't.

[Orange Wizard]

Why does believing that Jesus is my Savior matter, but following His teachings doesn't?

There are two sides to this. The first is that we are saved by grace, not works. The second is that faith without works is dead.
origami is stressing the first point, mostly because it's contrary to the idea being a "good person" somehow makes you worthy of Heaven.
Unfortunately, he's not stressing the second point, where we absolutely must strive to follow the Law, even though it's futile, as part of keeping that faith.

Hopefully that makes things clearer. I can go into more detail if you like.

[Rolepgeek]

So, if we are saved by grace (which, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying 'God's whim', just it's beneficial so we don't call it that and also blasphemy), not works, then the question arises of why bother with works? If one trusts in God, there is no need for that, really.

One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.

Is it impossible to hold Faith in God while believing Him to have inspired the Bible as appropriate for the Times, and that those Times have changed?

Oh, and tangentially related; other than selfish reasons, if given the choice between making the living world a better place as best I can conclude the definition of 'better', and getting into Heaven, why should I choose the latter?

[origamiscienceguy]

So, if we are saved by grace (which, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying 'God's whim', just it's beneficial so we don't call it that and also blasphemy), not works, then the question arises of why bother with works? If one trusts in God, there is no need for that, really.

One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.

Is it impossible to hold Faith in God while believing Him to have inspired the Bible as appropriate for the Times, and that those Times have changed?

Oh, and tangentially related; other than selfish reasons, if given the choice between making the living world a better place as best I can conclude the definition of 'better', and getting into Heaven, why should I choose the latter?

OrangeWizard summed it up pretty well. Also, if you are saved, the holy spirit comes in you and slowly makes you a better person. You've probably heard the verse "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Which explains that the result of the spirit coming into you, you start to sin less. This is not an intrusion on free will, since you still will sin... alot, but it is more like a push in the right direction.

[Orange Wizard]

So, if we are saved by grace (which, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying 'God's whim', just it's beneficial so we don't call it that and also blasphemy), not works, then the question arises of why bother with works? If one trusts in God, there is no need for that, really.

Simply put, we try to follow the Law because we're commanded to. It kinda makes you look like a hypocrite if you claim to be Christian, but you're saying "yeah God says murder is bad" while running around stabbing people. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea.

One may bring up the valid second point which I would agree with to some point, but I question the relevance of the Law if it has become futile. It's happened once, after all; People seem to say the Old Testament was made redundant many times, at least of the laws they disagree with. Is it so implausible that, in the following two thousand years, with the advent of technology those Christ spoke to would be hard pressed to even conceive of if shown, the relevance of some of those laws might have changed? It was written back when some things were probably very sensible, after all, and those things may have fallen out of being sensible. Like what to eat versus not to eat.

Not all of the OT law is relevant. I made a post about how it's defined a while back. I'll go find it.

E: Here you go.

For the churches that actually care about that sort of thing, there's normally a distinction made between moral, civil, and ceremonial Mosaic law.
The moral law is stuff like the Ten Commandments. Broad, nonspecific, "don't do this stuff, it's bad". These laws are a general expression of how God wants us to act.
Civil law is the ridiculously specific stuff that you get in Leviticus, that sets rules for slave ownership and property rights and all that. These were relevant to ye olde nation of Israel, basically God's divinely ordained legal system. You can argue that we should use these as a basis for modern law, but there's not really any point. I mean, who has slaves any more, geez.
Similarly, ceremonial laws are for the priesthood, sacrifices, and other religious... ceremonies. These were specifically relevant to Judaism, and were absolutely made redundant by Christ. When these laws are cited in a modern context it's usually to defend the idea that we should be building big, fancy churches, and generally putting a lot of money and effort into worship. Which has some merit IMO, but if it gets in the way of, say, providing for the poor, then you're flagrantly missing the point.

So basically, moral law is always relevant. Do not murder, do not lie, provide for those in need, hold God in the highest esteem.
Civil law is arguably relevant (but not really). Sell your land after seven years, don't keep your slaves forever (unless they want to stay), killing someone by accident is forgiveable if you go to this city afterwards.
Ceremonial law is redundant and only vaguely relevant for modern worship. Sacrifice X animal on Y day, sprinkle blood here, there, and everywhere, an aroma pleasing to the Lord, etcetera.

[Rolepgeek]

I believe I read your post. That was exactly my point though.

If it was irrelevant then, what is to say that some newer, equally ceremonial part (Baptism, say, having replaced circumcision, being replaced by something else, or even be dropped; you cannot save the souls of others simply by dipping their heads in water as newborns. They must accept Christ into their hearts) is not irrelevant now? My point is not that 'God says murder is bad', but that 'the Bible says X is bad, but perhaps it isn't really, because A. Bible was written by man, who is flawed, and keeping a text, even a holy one, accurate through the better part of two millenia, in multiple and changing languages, accurate for that long is...difficult; B. God changes His mind, apparently, as shown by the fact that the Old Testament and the New disagree at times; and C. I can only know, truly, in my heart(I won't speak for other people here), that I do good, when I do good that affects this life. If I do something which appears to be good, but the Bible disagrees, why is my moral intuition, granted by God, subservient to the fallacies of men a thousand years over? People change their mind on what the bible means, and different interpretations result in different translations, leaving out all the other things I said.

God's Word may be law, if I take that as my moral code, but the Bible is not His Word unfiltered and uncorrupted, as near I can tell.