U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2013, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,431 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Yes, it is true. Eternal salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone.
So, you would suggest without God's willing covenant, Christ on the cross would over power HIS decisions. So much for Omnipotence, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The believer's spiritual life comes afterwards. And his spiritual life or lack thereof after having been saved has no bearing on the fact that he has been saved. You cannot say (although legalist's do) that because a person has no works that he was never saved.
What I can say is that if you don't have works you aren't saved.

I can't say that you can do works that will save you.

But works hasn't got a p-diddly pile of worm dirt to do with ANYTHING I said. I spoke of GOD's Covenant that superseded Christ on the cross and empowered Christ on the cross. I'm guessing you went to works because it was the only angle you thought you could win? J/j. sorry,I work in sales, tough love weird humor.

How works factor in.
You should identify the paraphrases if not ask before you tell me I'm wrong.

You are saved by grace through faith, not works so no man can boast.
If you have faith, you will have works. (not claiming you can force faith by doing works.)
If you don't have works, you won't have faith.
If you don't have faith, you don't have grace.
Without grace you aren't saved, amen?

If you are walking around screaming hell fire and brimstone salvation, but your life isn't reflected it with action, you never stepped on the bus.
Now, this was a total tangential divide and should move to its own thread. if you want to chase it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post



The means of salvation has always been the same though out human history. By believing in the promised Messiah.
Oh, pshaw. Noah didn't know of a messiah. Melchizidek WAS the messiah of his time. CHRIST is fashioned AFTER Melchizedek's example. You can't defend that statement with anything but presuppositions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Animal sacrifices were ordained by God following Adam's fall.
Teach me, where was sacrifice made for sins before the levitical law? maybe I missed it. I've not devoted weeks and months to finding it like I have other parts of this chat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
But Israel's sacrificial system was more intensive. However, the animal sacrifices could only cover sin.
Funny, I see most of the sacrifices before Israel existed to be thanks offerings, not for sins. I'm allowing room to be wrong before I say ALL. Show me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
And they were a picture or type of Christ's once for all sacrifice on the cross. No one was saved by animal sacrifices
The gospel as you teach it, requires acknowledgement of Christ. They didn't know Christ. You can't have it both ways. That's just silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The reason Paul said that is neither Jew or Gentile, is because the church is a new creation in which the distinction between Jew and Gentile does not exist within the body of Christ which the church is.
So, just ignore that the church is made after Melchizedek's. That's always a convenient way out of a discussion, just state something contradictory and ignore the stuff already said that defeats the contradictory statement? How convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Bothe Jew and Gentile are part of the same body which is not Israel, but church.
Both Jew and Gentile with MEL were the same people, there was no jew.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Yes, it is. Jesus came into the world to die for the sins of the world. If you deny that then you deny the gospel of salvation.
The fact you said that, shows me you are not reading a dang thing I said but are knee jerking. I'm embarrassed for you. I specifically answered this in my commentary no less than 2 times. You can't just ignore it and pretend I believe other than what I've said and hold any credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
He paid the penalty for every sin that has ever or will ever be committed so that anyone who believes on Him has eternal life.
not scriptural. It's deduced from scripture, and the deduction can be argued against. But it's not as clear scripturally as you present it. If I'm wrong, show me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Again salvation has always been through faith in the promised Messiah. Just as Abraham had been saved by believing the promise of God, so also was Noah.
Before the messiah was promised everyone went to hell then.

Brilliant. Mike you need to cut the ties to evangelical parroting, and really question and investigate some of those teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Then you deny the gospel.
Lie. The only question is was it unintentional or deliberate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
God's righteousness demanded a penalty for sin. ]
OH GIVE ME A BREAK WHAT DO YOU WORSHIP IT IS NOT GOD!!!! NOTHING puts a demand on God. NOTHING can force his righteousness. HE NEEDS NOTHING to forgive other than His will. FOR THAT MATTER, dang near any catholic priest can forgive your sins, and any man who is led by the Spirit of God can too. At least scripture says as much. I understand that scripture is not as important as parroting the right cliches... but, for me it's PREEMINENT when it comes to theology. MINE must fit it, not it fit mine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Fallen man could not pay it, and so it was necessary for God to become man, and as perfect sinless man, pay the penalty that His righteousness demanded. Christ came into the world to die on the cross in order to reconcile man to God.
So God has needs. It was necessary for God to do something. Do you hear yourself? You have a very puny God. He's not omnipotent, and something in the creation has a control on Him and makes HIM have needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's the same garbage that Universalists spout. Jesus had to die. He had to take the punishment as a substitute for us.
Look, let universalists be whatever they are and leave them out of the chat, it has nothing to do with anything I said. You haven't touched on the actual points I said enough to even suggest you understood what I WAS arguing. I'd like to have THAT chat if we could.

You are a bright guy, you reason well, but you aren't engaging my actual beliefs, but giving me generic type answers that don't apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, it doesn't eliminate any of Paul's teachings.
Wouldn't it have been wiser to ask which ones before you declared it wouldn't? ONE shows you are talking WITH someone, the other appears you are only talk at or down to someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You must first be saved by grace through faith before you can have any kind of a spiritual life.
Spiritual life... you mean where you are indwelled by the Spirit, right?
Are you still in the flesh? (meaning the sinful nature...)

If so, you are not yet having a spiritual life either. Romans 8:9 I THINK THAT IS PAUL'S TEACHING!

Do you still give into temptation??? Then you do not yet walk by the spirit, Gal 5:16.

As best I can tell by how your comment was worded, that would mean you did not yet have a spiritual life, because the Bible indicates if you do, there are indicators (listed above) that would be presented in your life that are not there yet. (*depending on your answers above.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Salvation comes first, and then the spiritual life. They are not the same thing.
They are not the same thing. Although you are sanctified one way at atonement/salvation and at full maturity you are sanctified in another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I've seen some of your posts. Including this one. I am not impressed.
The day I live and think to impress other people, is the day I abandoned any walk with Christ.

I'd be more impressed if you assumed less and engaged more. How about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2013, 01:33 PM
 
9,813 posts, read 6,735,280 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
Yep. I also find the Nazi's hijacking the swastika and Charles Manson hijacking Helter Skelter offensive. Last I looked we were still allowed to determine what we personally find offensive. Has that changed?
Are you an Atheist?


These are the only people I know that go nuts with religious symbols?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Dallas TX
304 posts, read 247,431 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Are you an Atheist?


These are the only people I know that go nuts with religious symbols?
I don't see anyone going nuts.

I"m not Atheist.

I think most of the people IDOLIZE their religious symbols. They are more worried about looking than living the life. NOT ALWAYS.... but really, most of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 02:20 PM
 
545 posts, read 382,990 times
Reputation: 58
When I was about 7 years old and found out my patron saint was Saint Martin de Porres like little guys are I thought hey , maybe I will be a doctor when I grow up.

About four years later I saw one of those open surgeries on TV with all the intern's and pro's looking down from a glass window above.

The sight of the open cavity was so offensive for some reason I could barely watch and to this day will get out of the way in those things, even to the point of covering my eyes or looking away .

So its difficult to see the open heart on the popular pic's and have the devotional connection that others may experience in whats referred exactly out of visual. This by no means has any impact on the understandings but the bottom line, of the automatic thinking may have connecting simularities with people who have the same automatic in some way, possible with the cross. The issue itself I never even think about and just ignore the certain psychology in make up.

In all I think the ideas which have things to do or at least are somewhat associated with history's dividing and different church's with ddifferent idea's..bringing and introducing people to different things including at a young age as I think it was mentioned already. So what happens is all the Christians today get stuck with trying to piece things together.

Last edited by macpherson; 10-03-2013 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,992,011 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33 View Post
Now, before anyone goes ballistic or starts throwing Bible verses at me, please hear me out.

Yes, I understand that the cross is the most widely recognized symbol of Christianity throughout the world. But it is also a symbol of death. As I understand it, crucifixion was fairly common at the time, so it is not even Jesus specific. That is where it is believed he died, NOT a symbol of resurrection.

Think of it this way - If a leader of your religious order were beheaded or hung, would you wear a mini guillotine or noose around your neck? Even if it were all blinged out or sparkly gold, it would just be weird.

I don't understand why the cross rather than the stylized fish - or any other positive symbol - became more representative of Christianity.
Luke 9:23 NIV - Then he said to them all:

Quote:
23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.
Aside from the cross being the means of his sacrificial offering.

It's a sacramental but it's not required of you to use a cross or wear one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,992,011 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No . . . it was according to our ignorant and savage ancestors who in their fear of God and their barbarity knew no other way to appease God for sin than to shed the blood of innocent creatures. They had been taught this barbaric ritual from time immemorial. They knew nothing else . . . and it is why we were failing as a species to produce agape love for life.
We still shed the blood of those innocent creatures. And we eat them. The sacrificial offerings of animals were also shared, eaten, in covenant meals.

Actually, I think we probably slay more animals today, and raise them for slaughter in more horrendous conditions, then ancient peoples did.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 04:48 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,670,932 times
Reputation: 32348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Are you an Atheist?

Nope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 06:13 PM
Status: "Smacking fundies." (set 6 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
25,829 posts, read 13,426,503 times
Reputation: 11677
I wore a crucifix on a chain around my neck taken from a rosary blessed by Pope John XXIII for over 20 years -- long after I left the Catholic Church, and Christianity (though that took a little longer). It grew thinner every year. I never removed it, even while bathing/showering. After 10 or 12 years, the figure of Christ wore away, though it took years from loss-of-nose-tip 'til there-goes-the-torso. Eventually, the metal cross itself got thinner and thinner.

Until, for the last couple of years of its "life," it get so thin it was sharp. I often awoke with thin cuts on my chest and neck from rolling over and it pressing against my skin, sideways.

Eventually, it was paper-thin and the eyelet broke beyond mending. Whatever wafer-thin hint of what it once was, simply disappeared one day and I realized I was wearing a chain around my neck - but no suggestion of a cross was left.

It would make for a good story if I said that was the day I realized, once for all, that Christianity was not the answer.

But it took a little longer than that - perhaps another handful of years - before I could totally shed the skin of a Christian and morph into my current butterfly* form.



*Tongue is in cheek! Sheesh. But only for the last sentence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,105 posts, read 54,597,263 times
Reputation: 66501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Are you an Atheist?


These are the only people I know that go nuts with religious symbols?
Huh? She said she finds people using religious symbols as symbols of hate offensive. That's in no way indicative of atheism. What a stretch of imagination there.

Burning a cross, the symbol of YOUR religion, on the lawn of someone of a different race as a threat is just dandy with you? Really?

You ARE aware, I hope, that until 20 years ago or so, they also burned them on the lawns of Catholics when they felt like it. Now they allow Catholics in as members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 07:28 PM
 
9,813 posts, read 6,735,280 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Huh? She said she finds people using religious symbols as symbols of hate offensive. That's in no way indicative of atheism. What a stretch of imagination there.

Burning a cross, the symbol of YOUR religion, on the lawn of someone of a different race as a threat is just dandy with you? Really?

You ARE aware, I hope, that until 20 years ago or so, they also burned them on the lawns of Catholics when they felt like it. Now they allow Catholics in as members.
I know quite well many so called Christians do not consider Catholics to be Christians. It is nothing more than profound ignorance so I am not offended. KKK folks are incredibly ignorant.

Many atheists are offended by crosses. Nothing unusual about that.

Last edited by Julian658; 10-03-2013 at 07:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top