I don't believe murders can change there ways. They shouldn't deserve to live if someone more pure etc than them couldn't because they killed them.

Ah, but how many of us deserve to live? And yet God has given us all the promise of salvation if we only reach out and take it. Therefore, as we are supposed to be the mirror of God here on earth, we should forgive, and do our best to save everyone, murderers included.
Oh, and it's my perception (I can't stop using that word, can I?) that no one person is purer than the other - we'll all be equal in God's eyes when we stand before the throne, and the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is that we accepted God's Grace. But of course, that could be a cause for debate.

Did you know that the great apostle Paul was a murderer? He led the stoning of Stephen, the first recorded Christian martyr. He was perhaps the most hated person by the early church until God met him on the road to Damascus. Did you also know Moses and David were murderers? And yet all three of these men are Biblical legends and heroes. If God can save them and use them in the powerful ways he did, how much more us? That is the power of salvation. On our own, we can't change our ways (murderers included). This is why Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again. God is more than capable of changes one's personality and he is doing it day by day.

*Feels like answering ILF's questions even if they weren't directed at her.*

If a stranger is just a dollar short for a bus, and you happen to have plenty of money. Is there any reason to give this person a dollar? Your not going to get any kind of reward in any way. So why even help this person?

As a Christian I have to say this, you'll be rewarded for it in Heaven- however I know that is neither the answer you wanted nor would it be my sole or main purpose. They need it and it would be the right thing to do. I feel that making someone's life easier would be more important that a dollar anyways. And frankly it would make me happier in the end- money does not buy happiness or righteousness.

Someone is about to do suicide. This person is actually a jerk but you know you can help this person if you wanted to.
This person is a jerk, and you know he's not going to thank you in any way. Is there any reason to help them?

Yes there is. Even if I hate the person I don't want to see them die. There's this kid at my school who used to make fun of me and my friends, and was for lack of better term a jerk. But he went off to join the marines, I worry about him, I pray he's alright. Besides what right do we have to hate someone? We don't live their lives. We don't know why they act like that. Plus I think Wagga made some pretty good points too (and yes it is 911 in the US)

You see your mate falling, and if you try to catch him/her you can save him/her but you will be crushed and die. Is there any reason to save your mate at all?

Yes. I'd rather die for someone I loved, than watch them die. I could explain more, but not here.

Of course I'm sure someone's gonna ask "What makes something right - just because some Supreme Being of the Universe says it's right?" I believe that's what most Atheists get out of Christianity. However that's only half of it. Something is right because God says to do it, and God tells us to do it because it is right. Of course then people just complain that that answer makes no sense because its not "linear." But haven't you noticed there's a whole lot of "cyclic" stuff in the world anyways? Seasons, history, the Universe's motion, life itself. In fact there really isn't much that's purely linear... every natural rule has an exception... Heavenly laws are -to my knowledge- another matter, however that is God's specialty, not mine

I don't believe murders can change there ways. They shouldn't deserve to live if someone more pure etc than them couldn't because they killed them.

Ah, but how many of us deserve to live? And yet God has given us all the promise of salvation if we only reach out and take it. Therefore, as we are supposed to be the mirror of God here on earth, we should forgive, and do our best to save everyone, murderers included.
Oh, and it's my perception (I can't stop using that word, can I?) that no one person is purer than the other - we'll all be equal in God's eyes when we stand before the throne, and the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is that we accepted God's Grace. But of course, that could be a cause for debate.

I don't see how a murder can be equal to someone for example a doctor who saves lives. Maybe because I don't believe in the bible.

I don't see how a murder can be equal to someone for example a doctor who saves lives. Maybe because I don't believe in the bible.

What you don't understand, I think, is the idea of grace: that a truly repentant murderer could have more standing before God because of the blood of Christ than a doctor who, though he has saved hundreds, refuses to acknowledge God. This is what you run up against: that God's economy is so different than ours. In God's economy the meek inherit the earth, the humble are crowned like kings, the ambitious are brought low, and the successful and famous brought down. It's not about what you did, but who you served (that's not to say that ethics counts for nothing, just to say that one can be the chief of sinners and yet inherit eternal life).

TBG

To be completely honest, as fallen humans we can't understand grace fully either. But yes, grace is practically incomprehensible to non-Christians because they're blind to the Truth. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit works in people's lives to awaken them to their need for repentance and a new life in Christ.

If i read the bible i might understand but I still might not agree with it. Also Maybe if I was brought up with the bible. Most my close family are atheists or are unsure of their believes or don't like discussing it. My mum went to church when she was younger but stopped going for a number of reasons.

To be completely honest, as fallen humans we can't understand grace fully either. But yes, grace is practically incomprehensible to non-Christians because they're blind to the Truth. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit works in people's lives to awaken them to their need for repentance and a new life in Christ.

It seems the concept of grace gives Christians enough trouble, considering that some Christians require sacraments to receive grace, while others do not.

But perhaps you use the word incomprehensible incorrectly here. That word means "difficult or impossible to understand." As a non-believer, I understand the concept of divine grace perfectly well. Just as I understand the concept of Wotan receiving the comprehension of the runes through divine self-sacrifice, or the journey of Ra through the underworld to be reborn.

Are you blind to the Truth of the one-eyed God's discovery of the magic runes?

While I understand these concepts, I also acknowledge them as the metaphorically significant myths of pre-scientific civilizations. Since supernatural magic does not exist, there is nothing here for me to be blinded by.

I don't believe murders can change there ways. They shouldn't deserve to live if someone more pure etc than them couldn't because they killed them.

Ah, but how many of us deserve to live? And yet God has given us all the promise of salvation if we only reach out and take it. Therefore, as we are supposed to be the mirror of God here on earth, we should forgive, and do our best to save everyone, murderers included.
Oh, and it's my perception (I can't stop using that word, can I?) that no one person is purer than the other - we'll all be equal in God's eyes when we stand before the throne, and the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is that we accepted God's Grace. But of course, that could be a cause for debate.

I don't see how a murder can be equal to someone for example a doctor who saves lives. Maybe because I don't believe in the bible.

Yes, a doctor who saves lives might be equal to the murderer who took them. You see, the doctor can still be a murderer. Some have been . It depends on his/her mental state, health, hygiene, experience, his/her level of knowledge, training and skills, and his/her ethics and self-discipline. Even then some of the things attempted can still have a significant element of risk due to unknown factors. I'd still check out my last will and testament and sort out funeral arrangements, before undergoing a triple by-pass.

Given your previous disregard (on largely scientific grounds) for the Book of Genesis I must view your sudden embracing of the Fall and Flood as fact as rather strange. Or are you taking them as figurative incidents? (CR & P. p.73)

Oddly enough, I see truth in the Bible beyond counting ribs in the second chapter of Genesis. I can still believe in the overview of Creation, which doesn't go into specific details, (Genesis chapter 1), because it says Who initiated the formation of the Earth and decreed that there would be life. Who said: "Let there be light". Evolution is only a process, which only shows us the how, not the who let alone the why. What or Who set the ball rolling, you might ask. The Bible answers that still.

The Bible does relate in Adam and Eve's fall from Eden, only too clearly, the results and implications of eating the fruit from the tree of Knowledge. That having been driven from our innocent hunter/gatherer Eden/Dreamtime existence, we found we had to grow our own food, husband it, and use it not only to supply ourselves but our dependants. That a more sedentary way of life and a change in diet would affect us physiologically, affecting, in particular, women in childbirth. That conflict would arise between farmers and herders. That the ethics of sharing with fellow hunter-gatherers the kill and whatever was gathered were lost, and people became greedy as the supply of food became more reliable.

The Bible relates clearly how those who were released from tending flocks or ploughing fields would have time to do other useful things, eg making clothes, baskets, pottery or smelting ore to make metal, playing music and so on. How surplus food or goods could be traded for other things. It is all there in Genesis, which mentions Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, among others. But some weren't so clever or as motivated and did evil things instead. The Bible also tells us about the growth of cities and how civilisation both corrupted and benefitted mankind, until the pressure of a greedy, unethical, population, delving into strange customs and beliefs about fertility, to explain the world about them, started to create problems. Nimrod, by the way, did become a mighty hunter, but Nimrod is also the name of an ancient city of the Assyrians, whose kings hunted Asiatic lions almost to extinction.

No, until the last century or so, nobody knew about evolution, let alone about viruses, bacteria etc., let alone about why there were natural disasters which overwhelmed the countryside and whole groups of cities in floods or in fire and brimstone. But one man, Abraham, did realise that there was only the one True God, not the many those around him believed in. That was a major scientific discovery in itself. There were going to be others mentioned in the Bible even if nobody took much notice.

One ancient king of Judah, who was half-way decent, made a very big mistake in consulting the doctors of those times, and in not cleansing himself in prayer to Jehovah. Because the wounds, being unwashed, even ritually, became infected and so Asa died. Even today, when doctors have cleaned up their act quite significantly, I'd still be praying for God's grace and mercy if there was anything life-threatening to be done, wouldn't you? Furthermore, doctors, themselves, being human, often still need the grace and mercy of God in the pursuit of their very responsible profession.

Berserker, I meant 'incomprehensible' to non-Christians in a similar but different sense. I believe they can understand the idea of divine grace etc. as a concept but to believe it to be God's Truth, that's another thing altogether, that only the Holy Spirit can help us in understanding. Divine grace expressed through self-sacrifice to redeem and restore a fallen world, that is the one belief unique to the Christian God.

(... coming in very hesitantly, not wanting to interrupt the above complex discussion... )

Can I ask the learned and wise out there a pretty straightforward question, which I hope won't lead to a long diversion from what's being talked about?

I was looking at the verse John 5 'For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me; but if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?'

and I wondered: just which bit of Moses’ writings, which I take to mean the first five books of the Bible, was this referring to? ie which bit of those five books is about Jesus, specifically?

Can anyone give me a quick answer?

And no fair saying grandly 'Why, the whole OT is about Jesus, if properly understood!'

As a non-believer, I understand the concept of divine grace perfectly well.

The trouble is that you understand grace as a concept. Until you get past the concept to the reality of grace, you do not understand it. Similarly, you don't know me unless you become friends with me. You cannot understand grace as a non-believer.

TBG

That's not Q'uran, it's in English.

You're right. But in the context that we are in, posting an English translation seemed to be far more helpful than posting the original, Arabic text.

الذين كفروا هي تلك التي تقول : "الله هو المسيح ابن مريم" المسيح قال لنفسه : "بني إسرائيل ، خدمة الله ربي وربكم فعليه أن يعبد آلهة أخرى إلى جانب الله ، والله سوف تحرم عليه الجنة، والنار ليكون بيته. وأيا مساعدة فاعلي الشر. (Surah 5:72)

Yeah, that's the original word of Allah, but I doubt that very many people here can read that.

Also, see Surah 2:62 for a slightly different approach to "peoples of the book."

Okey-doke. *sees Surah 2:62*

لو! أولئك الذين يعتقدون (في ما أنزل إليك، محمد) ، وأولئك الذين هم من اليهود والمسيحيين ، والصابئة -- يجب بالتأكيد أجرهم عند ربهم، وهناك -- كل من يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ويفعل الحق لا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون. (Surah 2:62)

I can't read Arabic! *goes to get the English translation*

Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (Surah 2:62)

I'm no expert on Islamic theology, but when I read that verse I get a different impression than you. The first thing I notice is that Sabaeans are listed next to Jews and Christians. Sabeans doesn't refer to the followers of a religion, but rather an ethnic group. So they might be referring to someone who has a Jewish or Christian background. Secondly, the requirement of believing in Allah and the Last Day is added. I'm pretty sure that you don't believe in “Allah”.

Muslims think that anyone who believes in more than one God (and they consider the Trinity as 3 Gods) is blasphemy. There are multitudes of verses that condemn anyone not of the Islamic faith.

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (Surah 3:85)

If Muslims had the idea that Christian and Jewish people were acceptable under Allah's eyes, they have contradicted their beliefs in the most extreme fashion throughout the entire history of their religion.

Of course the Qu'ran can be translated, especially if a non-Arabic speaker understands Arabic well enough to read it in Arabic. However, Islamic clerics have gone on record to say it isn't as good in the translation, that translations are never exact etc., that translations distort the meaning. This is their gripe against the Bible, that it has been translated too often.

And this is one area where I think Islamic theology is superior to Christian theology. Muslims really do have a point - if we have an infallible book, we shouldn't ever translate it because changes would be inevitable. Christians just simply dismiss this issue by either never thinking about it or claiming that the tiny changes made by translations don't really matter - which I find to be a pretty disrespectful thing to say about something given to you by God.

That argument does not really follow since surely the people who embrace Islam are not always Arabic speakers, and still have a right to know and understand exactly what it says, having learned what the Qu'ran says and not by rote in Arabic, either.

Actually, I think that argument does follow. Of course most of the people do not speak the original language that their holy book was written in, and if they want to really read God's original words, then they'd better learn Arabic! Where did you get this idea that they have the "right" to know and understand exactly what it says with a complete lack of knowledge of God's language? Individuals with incorrect knowledge of a topic or subject are probably worse off than people who know absolutely nothing.

I think this demonstrates an enormous problem for Christianity. For example, let's say we're in the Middle Ages where almost everyone can't read. You live in a Christian village and are privileged enough to be literate and read the one copy of the Bible in your local Church, but you feel sorry for the many illiterate people around you. You want them to be able to read the Bible too! What would be the best course of action?

1) Educate all the peasants until they are all literate.

2) Translate the bible into their native "language". Make an illustrated version of the Bible entirely out of pictures and subject to your artistic interpretation, that way every peasant can "read" the Bible without getting an education.

I refer you to Romans 1, yet again. Ignorance is no excuse.

Yes He did: He did the Father's will---perfectly. This is the testimony of Scripture and the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus, the God-man, never sinned.

But then this creates a bit of a problem when one examines Judas. Jesus said it was better if Judas had never been born. But Judas was essential to Jesus's plan and God's Will. Had it not been for Judas, Jesus wouldn't have been able to die for everyone's sins. Thus, did Judas also not sin (at least when he betrayed Jesus) because he was doing what God wanted him to do?

They never started. The Church catholic exists independently, transcending the Church visible. The only head of the Church catholic is Christ Himself.

Hmmm. From what I understood in Scripture, Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of the Church. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what Peter's role was?

There was considerable debate over this in the early centuries, as a matter of fact. While the NT canon was settled relatively quickly, the church had significant debates over whether to use to canon of the Septuagint (which varied from manuscript to manuscript) or the Hebrew Tanakh.

In this discussion I was going off of what I had learned in a "What Catholic Really Believe" class I attended at my local church. Now that I have researched it a little more, I am realizing that they gave me crap information. I still think the fact that Jesus and the New Testament writers used the Septuagint is pretty convincing, but I can see how other reasons would lead one to think otherwise.

It still would discomfort me, however, if the canon of a book I held to be infallible was debated and changed to such an extent.

We may at least say that revelation includes at least these books.

I'll grant you that. The more important issue seems to be how to interpret them.

And of course, you seem to have forgotten that the primary revelation of God is found in Jesus Himself: the God-man. Theologian Karl Barth puts it this way: God reveals Himself; He reveals Himself through Himself; God reveals Himself.

But the Gospels are the only definitive records, according to Christians, that we have of Jesus's revelation. Jesus didn't come down and appear to everyone. He came down and appeared to couple hundred thousand people at the most, then left anyone who didn't get the chance to see him in person with merely the stories people told about him. So while Jesus’ disciples had the revelation of God through Jesus, we merely have the revelation of God through the bible.

Tim Keller argues that in the end the question really does boil down to whether Christ is who He said He is. If so, then we have to take Scripture seriously, because Christ did so.

Yes, that would be the Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend question. I’ll go with Legend.

Did you know that the great apostle Paul was a murderer? He led the stoning of Stephen, the first recorded Christian martyr.

Small detail: The great apostle Paul didn’t lead the stoning of Stephen. According to Acts, he just guarded the coats of the people who chucked the stones.

Did you also know Moses and David were murderers? And yet all three of these men are Biblical legends and heroes. If God can save them and use them in the powerful ways he did, how much more us? That is the power of salvation. On our own, we can't change our ways (murderers included). This is why Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again. God is more than capable of changes one's personality and he is doing it day by day.

I sent this to my mother, who has a degree in theology, and while she agrees with your point that God can use everyone, she doesn’t think you have it right by saying that God changes people’s personalities. She used the example of the Apostle Peter, who is very quick to say things and respond to situations without thinking. This doesn’t change when he follows Christ. Rather, his energy and focus has just been redirected.

I would say that from the stories in the Bible, it seems that God uses a lot more than just the Biblical heroes. He uses the Biblical villains to accomplish his “plans” quite often as well. There is also the difficulty of figuring out whether some Bible characters are heroes or villains. Paul is definitely considered a hero, even though he was against Christ in his early life, because he converted and evangelized quite effectively in his later years. But someone like Solomon, for instance, was very God-fearing and humble at the beginning of his life, and earned for himself the gift of being “the wisest man who ever lived”. He built the temple and did a lot of great things for God. But towards the end of his life, he inexplicably did many stupid acts – he prayed to the gods of his wives, and mismanaged his workforce to support his excessive life of luxury (causing Israel to split in half after he died.) Is someone like Solomon good or bad?

There was no need to change Peter's personality because Peter's personality was perfectly fine as far as what God needed to do.

What it seems that FencerforJesus was referring to is that there are certain aspects of our "personality" that are wholly detrimental, and God can change that. For example, being a "reserved" person who likes solitary time and prefers not to speak a lot has lots of good points, and God would not make such a person into an extrovert. However, being a person who shies away from any sort of social contact or who has non-secure attachment styles is, by and large, not something God wants us to have. Such a thing that can seem so ingrained into our very being, the Holy Spirit can empower us to break free of that.

Of course, all of this gets into what exactly defines "personality". And that can get messy. But one thing's for sure: our sinful nature is definitely something very ingrained into our selves, and that sinful nature does permeate into our "personality". And God is all about freeing us from our sinful nature.

As for whether Solomon is good or bad, well, the Bible already clearly says no one is good (and yes, that means Paul is not "good" either). However, if the book of Ecclesiastes is of any indication, Solomon was definitely repentant. And really, that would classify Solomon as a "hero", I'd say.

I think this demonstrates an enormous problem for Christianity. For example, let's say we're in the Middle Ages where almost everyone can't read. You live in a Christian village and are privileged enough to be literate and read the one copy of the Bible in your local Church, but you feel sorry for the many illiterate people around you. You want them to be able to read the Bible too! What would be the best course of action?

1) Educate all the peasants until they are all literate.

2) Translate the bible into their native "language". Make an illustrated version of the Bible entirely out of pictures and subject to your artistic interpretation, that way every peasant can "read" the Bible without getting an education.

3) Realize that God has blessed you with the ability to read the Scriptures so that you may bring it to the other illiterate people, and realize that your desire that everyone else can read is simply that: a desire--fact is, given all the particular circumstances of the time, teaching everyone to read and giving everyone an "education" (whatever that meant at the time) just isn't that important and could ultimately cause more harm than good.

Think anthropologically. What we modern American humans consider valuable and important might not be what humans living in different conditions would consider valuable and important.

Thus, did Judas also not sin (at least when he betrayed Jesus) because he was doing what God wanted him to do?

Simply because God meant it for good does not make the act itself any less evil. You have failed to distinguished between the decrees of God (for history) and the commands of God.

Hmmm. From what I understood in Scripture, Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of the Church. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what Peter's role was?

Certainly he was often the spokesman for the Apostles and the Apostles had unique authority in the Church. However, only Christ is head of the Church (the Roman Catholics in the room will, naturally, dispute this).

But the Gospels are the only definitive records, according to Christians, that we have of Jesus's revelation. Jesus didn't come down and appear to everyone. He came down and appeared to couple hundred thousand people at the most, then left anyone who didn't get the chance to see him in person with merely the stories people told about him. So while Jesus’ disciples had the revelation of God through Jesus, we merely have the revelation of God through the bible.

Yet in the Scriptures we encounter Christ by the Spirit. The inspiration of the Scriptures was in the writing of them, is in them by nature, and for the believer, even the reading of them is inspired, though our interpretation is fallible. The question is whether you believe that God can inspire fallible human beings to write an infallible set of writings.

Yes, that would be the Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend question. I’ll go with Legend.

All right, but in this case, you can't have meaningful discussions about Jesus and his teachings. Also, you are in disagreement with the majority of Bible scholars.

TBG