Can Christians Do Good For Goodness Sake?

[Puffnstuff]

No, we don't, actually. Romans 7:4-6:

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]

It's impossible for a non Christian to understand that when you become born again that the old man is replaced by the new man who is crafted by Jesus through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is exactly why the NT emphasizes that except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Waking up one day and deciding that you want to call yourself a Christian is not it. Going to a particular church or denomination will not earn you favor with God as salvation is the free gift of God not of works lest any man should boast. Confess your sins to Jesus and he that is true, faithful and just will forgive you of your sins.

 

[HeXen]

I suspect we need a safe space thread.

 

[MajinCry]

No, we don't, actually. Romans 7:4-6:

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]

That's according to Paul, in direct contradiction to Yahweh and Jesus.

In Luke 16:17, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is not invalidated.

Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is to be followed until the New Covenant has been fulfilled.

Jeremiah 31:31-34, the conditions for the New Covenant are that every living person follows the Law to the letter, and that everybody knows it by heart. Only then shall the Law be inapplicable, as everybody will be doing as God wishes (following the commandments, e.g, stoning city rape victims that didn't scream), thusly there is no sin, so there is no punishment to be done.

I think Jesus' authority ranks higher up than a mere mortal's, as far as the religion is concerned.

 

[MajinCry]

It's impossible for a non Christian to understand that when you become born again that the old man is replaced by the new man who is crafted by Jesus through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is exactly why the NT emphasizes that except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Waking up one day and deciding that you want to call yourself a Christian is not it. Going to a particular church or denomination will not earn you favor with God as salvation is the free gift of God not of works lest any man should boast. Confess your sins to Jesus and he that is true, faithful and just will forgive you of your sins.

You have to provide chapter and verse. Christianity isn't some abstract concept; it has rules, punishments and guidelines, all encased in that book.

Do you take Paul's claims, over Jesus' own word?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The religious may be naive as hell and appear to be gullible idiots, but so many atheists are additionally willed with arrogance. They believe that if they can't see God nobody else can either. .

Bullshit. Not seeing what isn't there is not arrogance, it's sanity.

If somebody you knew claimed they saw a giant purple walrus eating the Empire State Building despite the overwhelming evidence against it, like nobody else seeing it and the Empire State Building standing there completely un-nibbled, would you nod your head and say "sure, could be, could be" or would you feel they were disturbed, possibly dangerous and in need of help? Would you feel arrogant if it was option B?

If god wants me to believe he exists, it's up to him to provide evidence, not his self-appointed spokesmen to assure me he's real because a schizophrenic goat-herder told him so. That's not arrogance, it's intelligence, reason, rationality.

 

[Puffnstuff]

In Luke 16:17, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is not invalidated.

That's right until you become born again you are under the law which will be applied upon your appearance at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is to be followed until the New Covenant has been fulfilled.

When you accept the salvation offered by God through Jesus the price is paid and you are forgiven. This concept isn't too hard is it fellas?

 

[Blue_Max]

I think Jesus' authority ranks higher up than a mere mortal's, as far as the religion is concerned.

...then why are you more concerned about the words he supposedly said, than the physical example he set? Since you mention stoning adulterers, did he join in the stoning as the old law required, or prevent the stoning as per his primary mandate of peace/love/tolerance/etc.?

 

[PricklyPete]

As an atheist who regularly volunteers, I know a lot of Christians who do wonderful things with no "heavenly" motivation. They likely have the same selfish motivation that I do...helping others makes you feel good and generally leaves you with a positive outlook on the life you are lucky enough to have.

 

[MajinCry]

That's right until you become born again you are under the law which will be applied upon your appearance at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

When you accept the salvation offered by God through Jesus the price is paid and you are forgiven. This concept isn't too hard is it fellas?

Again. Chapter and verse.

 

[raildogg]

Bullshit. Not seeing what isn't there is not arrogance, it's sanity.

If somebody you knew claimed they saw a giant purple walrus eating the Empire State Building despite the overwhelming evidence against it, like nobody else seeing it and the Empire State Building standing there completely un-nibbled, would you nod your head and say "sure, could be, could be" or would you feel they were disturbed, possibly dangerous and in need of help? Would you feel arrogant if it was option B?

If god wants me to believe he exists, it's up to him to provide evidence, not his self-appointed spokesmen to assure me he's real because a schizophrenic goat-herder told him so. That's not arrogance, it's intelligence, reason, rationality.

You are talking about only about the physical state of being. Don't you think there is more to life than purely "what you see and feel"? Can't some people's "conscience," for lack of a better word, be different than other people's? I mean, it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of people out there are totally asleep (including me) but some can actually think independently. Their way of looking at the whole thing called life is totally different.

It's not a matter of believing in Jesus like many claim to do so. Or believing in some other religion. That probably is not real religion anyway.

However, we should not simply boil life to the physical being only. There is more to the human being than his body and his intellect.

 

[Paratus]

Believing in Darwin's theory of evolution is even more far fetched seeing that we have not a single species in the process of undergoing an evolutionary change. Adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Show me a pecan tree that arbitrarily decided that it wants to start growing peaches on a couple of branches and I'm all ears. Show me a fish leaving the primordial ocean to attend grade school.

Bigotry is a universal bias towards any opposing view in any area or subject m

Planets remaining in a stable orbit just the right amount of distance from their life sustaining stars, our world being covered by 70% water to facilitate the equitable distribution of oxygen and food, a core that can counteract all of our redistribution of mass on a constant basis, no proof of evolution whatsoever. This place is physically billions of years old so I believe that sufficient time has passed to obtain evidence that would countermand the claims made by Christianity.

What you've posted above is such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution it's little better than the retarded fish frog bit from South Park

So it's no wonder you don't believe in evolution. Evolution is not only adaption but natural selection and inheretible traits through imperfect replicators.

The entire fossil record supports evolution. We've directly seen single cell organisms evolve in the lab. All of modern biology and genetics are based on evolution.

Evolution is as successful and well supported a theory as Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and General Relativity.

You seem to have an open mind. Maybe keep a open mind about evolution and learn what it actually is before dismissing it.

 

[raildogg]

Well, no, the religions don't teach that at all. They command rape, slaughter, genocide, (sex) slavery, etc. At least that is the case for the Abrahamic religions. I think Jainism and Hinduism are pretty decent ones; they're not too big on the whole violence thing. Buddhism would be as well, if it weren't for the fact that it enacts two classes, with the non-Buddhists being serfs at the best of times.

And aye, you're right that most people do not follow their religion, thankfully. As we've seen in the Middle East, with Muslims that do follow the teachings of Yahweh...They're not too pleasant to live near.

As for what people should follow instead, there are two answers.

1. If it's a concept they want, then morality. Do good, help the innocent, punish the evil. As an example: don't kill a woman because she was raped and did not scream, even though the Bible tells you to. Offer her support, and get rid of the rapist instead.

2. If it's a figure they want, Fred Rogers seems like a great guy. Everybody oughta be like him. Failing that, Christopher Hitchens. Both, if people want a Pantheon.

On the subject of wealth, the Catholic Church, the ol' end game of the Roman Empire, has a fortune of a couple trillion pounds. They could reshape Liberia into a pretty nice place with that kind of money. Alas, raping children and donning fanciful robes is much higher on the to-do list.

Most people are born into a certain religion and then simply follow it their whole life; by follow, I mean they pick and choose to follow things based on time and convenience. They ignore certain things also based on time and convenience. So these are watered down followers - most people probably belong in this group I think. Maybe I'm wrong. This is probably true of all the major religions out there.

You mention morality and say that one should do good. Unfortunately, morality is relative to the time and geographic area; it changes from culture to culture and from one generation to another. 100 years ago, being gay was immoral but today, in many parts of our society, being anti-gay is immoral.

Following in the lead of people like Fred Rogers and Christopher Hitchens again leads us to similar conditions of a religion in some ways, at least. We only know them on the superficial levels anyway (not that it really matters much).

It's a tricky subject.

I guess most people nowadays seem to follow science, materialism, their pleasures, etc. The "live free" lifestyle is taking over the world. Sure, they may go to church or temple once or twice a week but it's all superficial.

Society is just as corrupt as ever whether people go to church or not.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

You are talking about only about the physical state of being. Don't you think there is more to life than purely "what you see and feel"? Can't some people's "conscience," for lack of a better word, be different than other people's? I mean, it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of people out there are totally asleep (including me) but some can actually think independently. Their way of looking at the whole thing called life is totally different.

Hey, I don't care if you claim to see something that nobody can see and no evidence supports the existence of, claim to hear something that nobody can hear and no evidence supports the existence of, claim to smell something that nobody can smell and no evidence supports the existence of or claim to sense something that nobody can sense and no evidence supports the existence of. What's the difference? There's no rational evidence to suggest that people who sense things that are undetectable to everyone else are sensing anything at all. We understand differences in sight and sound and smell, animals can see in the infrared spectrum that we can't, hear frequencies that our ears can't register, detect smells that are invisible to us. But beyond the physical you might as well be using a dowsing rod to detect ghosts. You're firmly in the realm of pseudo-scientific nonsense and I greet that with the same skepticism that I show for everything else that exists outside the realm of the senses. Prove it. I don't believe in fairy tales and I most assuredly don't view that as a failing. You want me to believe in invisible men in the sky, body thetans or fairies living in your shoes show me some evidence or piss off.

 

[greatnoob]

I'd wager Jesus was preaching artificial 'love' (i.e., telling immigrants to f*ck off) and ''''''forgiveness'''''''' (i.e., let those kiddie fiddlers free, they've done nothing wrong in the eyes of God) because he was secretly banging a LOT of married birdies then, probably thinking to himself "man, I got those morons good!"

It's obvious why a retard like Dump got elected: your average Christian is a fucking imbecile who'll believe anything and everything. Example: they are stupid enough to believe they should be eating Jesus' flesh. Figurative and literal zombies.

 

[raildogg]

Hey, I don't care if you claim to see something that nobody can see and no evidence supports the existence of, claim to hear something that nobody can hear and no evidence supports the existence of, claim to smell something that nobody can smell and no evidence supports the existence of or claim to sense something that nobody can sense and no evidence supports the existence of. What's the difference? There's no rational evidence to suggest that people who sense things that are undetectable to everyone else are sensing anything at all. We understand differences in sight and sound and smell, animals can see in the infrared spectrum that we can't, hear frequencies that our ears can't register, detect smells that are invisible to us. But beyond the physical you might as well be using a dowsing rod to detect ghosts. You're firmly in the realm of pseudo-scientific nonsense and I greet that with the same skepticism that I show for everything else that exists outside the realm of the senses. Prove it. I don't believe in fairy tales and I most assuredly don't view that as a failing. You want me to believe in invisible men in the sky, body thetans or fairies living in your shoes show me some evidence or piss off.

Ok, stay in your "firm" beliefs; most people won't ever consider anything else. (By the way, I said nothing about any of those things you mentioned.)

Let's say that every single thing is physical and intellectual; what does that change? I mean, you will remain the same and those who believe in their little organized religions will continue as well. It's all a matter of perspective and how one views things. It's not a matter of being right or wrong. You will never convince anyone of being wrong.

I'm just saying that there might be a possibility, or not, of some people being a little more "elevated" than others. By this I don't mean intellectually or physically. Maybe, possibly, some of the past men might belong in this category of slightly more "awakened" beings.

There is a reason why Christ, Buddha and others have been revered, worshiped and looked up for for thousands of years. These men probably did not want followers and worshipers. (Since followers often leave clear thinking at the door.) Of course there is debate about the existence of such men but is it totally out of the question that they may have existed?

 

[MajinCry]

Most people are born into a certain religion and then simply follow it their whole life; by follow, I mean they pick and choose to follow things based on time and convenience. They ignore certain things also based on time and convenience. So these are watered down followers - most people probably belong in this group I think. Maybe I'm wrong. This is probably true of all the major religions out there.

You mention morality and say that one should do good. Unfortunately, morality is relative to the time and geographic area; it changes from culture to culture and from one generation to another. 100 years ago, being gay was immoral but today, in many parts of our society, being anti-gay is immoral.

Following in the lead of people like Fred Rogers and Christopher Hitchens again leads us to similar conditions of a religion in some ways, at least. We only know them on the superficial levels anyway (not that it really matters much).

It's a tricky subject.

I guess most people nowadays seem to follow science, materialism, their pleasures, etc. The "live free" lifestyle is taking over the world. Sure, they may go to church or temple once or twice a week but it's all superficial.

Society is just as corrupt as ever whether people go to church or not.

Morality is not subjective. To demonstrate, if I were to be next to your infant daughter, and decided to rape her, how could that possibly be the morally white course of action?

It isn't, it's a morally black act; the infant was physically, emotionally and sexually harmed, in the name of sheer sexual pleasure.

As another example, in what way could the 40-day long rape, torture of Junko Furuta, and her death by her captors using more flame than intended, have her captors be morally white, and the victim morally black?

What people "believe" is acceptable, right, and wrong, definitely varies. But that does not mean morality is subjective. That hinges upon the idea that everybody is moral and strives to do moral things, which is childish naivety that borders upon insanity.

Take homosexuality. Who does it harm? Nobody, in and of itself. Who does homophobia harm? The homosexuals.

When two men love each other, and have sex with each other, who does it harm? Nobody. If a town gathers together to flay and murder those two men, who does it harm? The two men.

The former is neither moral nor immoral, it's not an issue of morality; nobody was harmed, and no harm was averted. It doesn't fall within the moral landscape. The latter, however? Two men were killed because they loved each other. That squarely places the murderers as immoral.


Bit long, but it's not exactly a small subject.

The difference between following in the footsteps of Rogers and Hitchens, and following religion, is that religion says you must do X and Y. End of, no changes. Otherwise it's not religion; it's opinion, it's not absolute. There is also the fact that Rogers was as peaceful and well-meaning a guy could ever hope to be, and Hitchens sought the truth and didn't shy away from bringing evil to light.


Whilst society wouldn't take too big a turn once it shakes off religion, at least in the near future, having people actually treat this one life we have with all the seriousness it deserves, and not believing that you can annul the most heinous of acts by praising Jesus, would do society a large amount of good in the long run.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Ok, stay in your "firm" beliefs; most people won't ever consider anything else. (By the way, I said nothing about any of those things you mentioned.)

Let's say that every single thing is physical and intellectual; what does that change? I mean, you will remain the same and those who believe in their little organized religions will continue as well. It's all a matter of perspective and how one views things. It's not a matter of being right or wrong. You will never convince anyone of being wrong.

I'm just saying that there might be a possibility, or not, of some people being a little more "elevated" than others. By this I don't mean intellectually or physically. Maybe, possibly, some of the past men might belong in this category of slightly more "awakened" beings.

There is a reason why Christ, Buddha and others have been revered, worshiped and looked up for for thousands of years. These men probably did not want followers and worshipers. (Since followers often leave clear thinking at the door.) Of course there is debate about the existence of such men but is it totally out of the question that they may have existed?

1) My firms beliefs are not firm. Show me evidence that they're wrong and I'll change them. Someone hearing voices in their head that they believe is god is not evidence of anything other than mental illness.

2) "Elevated"? Christ, what a crock of shit. Lots of people believe they're special, that they're elevated, different, better, that they can see, hear, feel or sense things other people can't. Those people are 0 for a gazillion in providing anything to prove it. When tested, they fail without fail. Period. But see #1. If someone comes up with any reasonable, testable, repeatable evidence that they exist on an elevated plane I'll reassess my beliefs. So far, they remain unchallenged because so far that evidence is non-existent. Funny how people have been claiming that shit since the dawn of history and not one single person has been able to demonstrate it for real. For the record, I can smell the planet Venus and hear the mold growing in my neighbors shower. There, I'm special too and if you don't believe me it's clearly your problem.The fact that I can't prove it is because my plane of existence is so much higher than your own that nothing translates across the dimensions.

3) Buddha did want followers, he spent most of his life courting them. And as for Jesus, there's no evidence that he existed at all. The christians have been searching for it for 2000 years and have come up empty. There's not a single word written by him or about him by anyone that was supposedly there at the time. No interviews with his followers, no interviews with somebody who claimed to have interviewed somebody that interviewed one of his followers. Nothing,. The first mention of Jesus came more than 50 years after he supposedly lived and it came from a person who admitted it was a dream, not an actual person. Everything that followed was Jesus's name written into myths that had been circulating around that region for hundreds of years. There were at least a dozen "gods" before Jesus in the Mediterranean area that were sons of gods (or sun gods), preached, performed miracles, were killed, rose from the dead to ascend to heaven and offered salvation to their followers through their sacrifice. Jesus was the only name that stuck because Constantine, emperor of Rome, believed in him and spread the word throughout Europe at swordpoint. Convert or die. So all the people that believed in Zoroaster, Mithras, Attas of Phyrgia and all the other gods that Jesus was a copy of just started believing in Jesus instead because they were forced to.

 

[greatnoob]

Ok, stay in your "firm" beliefs; most people won't ever consider anything else.

That'd be you. Atheists and agnostics were born in a religious household yet questioned their beliefs. You on the other hand still cling to your insane beliefs that rape, murder, war and judgement are "love" and "forgiveness." Don't put us in the same rocky boat as yourself..

There is a reason why Christ, Buddha and others have been revered, worshiped and looked up for for thousands of years. These men probably did not want followers and worshipers. (Since followers often leave clear thinking at the door.) Of course there is debate about the existence of such men but is it totally out of the question that they may have existed?

It's the same reason why Dump was elected: they are slightly smarter than the average retard and they have leadership skills. It's the same way kids look up to their parents for advice and knowledge and are always indoctrinated by dumb adults to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - just as stupid as Christianity. The reason why so many Christians (and Drump supporters) don't ever question their beliefs on their two Holy Gods (Jesus and Dump) is because they don't want to feel the stressful unease of cognitive dissonance - the same way Loving and Tolerant Christians would murder, burn and rape scientists of that time if they had anything that disproved the BS the Bible was - and still is - filled with.

 

[Red Hawk]

In Luke 16:17, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is not invalidated.

Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus explicitly states that the Law is to be followed until the New Covenant has been fulfilled.

As others have pointed out, Jesus' actions on many occasions went against the Law, or at least appeared to. Let's pay attention to the context of Matthew 5 in particular, shall we? It's part of a larger teaching called the "Sermon on the Mount". After saying "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (verse 19), he then hits a series of points all prefaced with "You have heard it was said", in reference to Old Testament teaching, immediately followed by "But I say to you", where he gives a seemingly different command. In full context, then, "these commandments" is in reference to what he is about to say, not the Old Testament Law. By saying he is there to fulfill the Law, he is claiming that his teaching is of the same authority as the Law. But his intended message can't be that you must follow OT Law to the letter when he immediately lists a bunch of commands that seem to go against OT Law.

So no, Jesus does not directly contradict Paul, and the point remains that Christianity does not teach what you claim that it teaches.

 

[MajinCry]

Again, he stated explicitly that the law is to be obeyed. He's supposed to be the banner that unites everybody; accept him as your deity and follow the law, and once everybody does that, the law will no longer be enforced.

Ya have to look at the whole shebang. Jesus is alluding to the seventh covenant, but that cannot come into play until the criteria are met, with him having stated that such is impossible. By saying that he's come to fulfill the law and the prophets (i.e, fulfill the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34), it's going to be made null.

But that won't be done until everybody follows the law to the letter.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I go to church. My church readily admits how bad we are on our own. Myself especially. I'm a disaster. I go back because I realize what a mess I am. It helps. I'll need to continue to go the rest of my life otherwise I go completely off the tracks. Church is for the sinners. Just as hospitals are for the sick.

Glad it works for you. Unfotunately, the judgemental hypocrites are far more prevalent, and that is unbearable.

Golden rule, live it, no need to apologize to some imaginary being.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Unfotunately, the judgemental hypocrites are far more prevalent, and that is unbearable.

I understand and completely agree with you and so does Matthew 7 which goes into detail about desired behaviors and how not to point fingers at others when you have a ton of things wrong with yourself. Those sign waving hate spewing stone throwing people have been around for a very long time and will not listen to anything but religion. Jesus stood in opposition to organized religion as he would today if he were here.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Hell will be a bigger party than anticipated.

 

[1prophet]

Then why aren't the Jews & Christians DOING it, then? Why is the world so conspicuously absent of Christians doing, say, the same thing muslims are - and in the same (or greater) numbers?

Because most christians and jews have accepted secularism and understand the importance of separation of religion from state and in general abide by that even when it offends their religious views and with few exceptions like abortion clinic bombers keep their fights in the system and the secular courts..

That's why you can put a crucifix in urine and call it art and find a venue to display it but good luck trying to do the equivalent to Islam.

What is truly sad the same apologist pretend liberals who would defend a crucifix in urine, burning a flag or bible as free speech do a hypocritical, cowardly about face when it comes to Islam.

 

[bshole]

That's right until you become born again you are under the law which will be applied upon your appearance at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

Lets think about that rationally. I am an engineer. I create things, lots of things. When my creations fail, it is I who am judged for their failure not the creations themselves. I AM PUNISHED NOT MY CREATIONS.

In what kind of fucked up universe are we blamed for our creator's fuck ups? He made us badly and then judges US for his screw-up? Is this rational on ANY level? T---H---I---N---K!!!!