Ask about Christianity? (help appreciated)

[casinopete]

AHA! My true motivation for answering questions becomes evident!

I CLAIM PAGE 3!!!!!!!!1111eleven1111

[casinopete]

[casinopete]

[casinopete]

[casinopete]

[Eykir]

[Eykir]

[Eykir]

[Mackay]

I will clarify, with great pleasure. but this response will take a LONG time to write, and hopefully it will answer some other questions too. I was hoping to see Casinopete while I was online, but he's not around - probably because it's like 5am his time - so I'll put together my explanation of the basic idea of Christianity tonight, probably.

A quick thing first:
Re: the Sabbath - I don't think Sunday is viewed as the Sabbath, but it is seen as the "holy day" not for "no reason" as stated by Casinopete, but because Sunday is the day that Jesus rose from the dead. This is why Christians worship on Sundays. I am indifferent as to which is actually "used", so to speak.

[Mackay]

To answer some of your other questions, Eykir: The church needs money so that it can keep itself maintained, pretty much. And this is for the good of the entire Christian community, so that they have someplace to meet, and learn, and worship. And because it is for the benefit of the whole community, the whole community should help to keep it going. Seems pretty logical to me.

The questions about sin and how it is treated should hopefully be answered by what I'm about to write. You'd be better off asking Courk or one of the Catholics about Mary, because I'm not clear on that. And extraterrestrial life isn't mentioned in the Bible - I would assume that it, as so many other things, is merely a matter of opinion. I am undecided as to its existence personally.

OK, so here's a big rant - other Christians, I'm doing my best, but help me out if I've got something wrong. I'm kinda sleep-deprived, so this is a tad psychotic and ranty. Enjoy!

CHRISTIANITY - BASIC PRINCIPLES

My purpose with this post is to get across the basic idea behind Christianity, without it being muddied by discussion of smaller/less essential matters, or confused by denominational differences. You'll have to bear with me though, because this explanation is going to be rather long... I'd like to at least attempt to get across the "why" as well as the "what". Hopefully this will also open the path for more questions. (In case you didn't notice, this is something I love talking about.)

An important idea in almost every faith (there are certainly exceptions) is the question of our eternal welfare... what happens once we get beyond this life. And in most of the faiths concerned with the aforementioned - possibly all of them - there are several alternatives. With the exclusion of things like Purgatory, which I'm not going to discuss, there is usually one "good" alternative and one "bad". Most often (not always - Hinduism is a notable exception) these alternatives are very similar to the concepts of Heaven and Hell. Most faiths with these two alternatives have some kind of "set" of rules to be followed, or some kind of criteria which a person must meet in order to achieve this "good" alternative. I am going to explain, to the best of my ability, why Christianity is different from the most commonly observed system of "you be good, you go to Heaven".

Eternal Life
Now we already know that Christianity, too, shares the concept I mentioned above of a Heaven and a Hell. Heaven is commonly referred to among Christians as "eternal life" - being resurrected and spending the rest of eternity with God. Just clearing that up so you know what I'm talking about when I mention it.
Let's consult the Bible for a second, though I know how so many of you hate it. "...the gift of God is eternal life..." (Romans 6:23). That's right! This eternal life I keep going on about? It's a free gift. And as such, it cannot be earned or deserved. Because, you know, it's a gift. Here's a tacky analogy to explain what I mean - Say I decide to buy... *tries to remember who's been posting in the thread* Eykir a present. Not for any particular reason, just because I like him. So I go out and I buy him a house. (It's my analogy, I can have as much money as I want!) It's a really nice house, too. lots of sproingy things. I'm pretty excited about it, so I go and pick Eykir up, and bring him to this new house, and I say "Here you go, Eykir! It's all yours!" He says to me, "Gee, thanks Mackay!" Then he pulls out his wallet and tries to give me five dollars to pay me back for the house.
Obviously this is pretty insulting, for two main reasons. Firstly, it was supposed to be a PRESENT! And he's tried to pay me for it! Once you pay someone for something, it's not a gift anymore, it's a purchase. And secondly, five bucks is worth nowhere near what I paid for this house.
Do you kinda see what I'm getting at? Trying to "earn" your way into heaven by doing good deeds is both insulting and inadequate - eternal life is a gift, not to be bought - and it's something that is far better than we could ever hope to be able to "earn" for ourselves, even if it WAS for sale.
So, there's this amazing free gift being offered to us freely... what's the catch, I hear you say? No catch, but what there is is something stopping us from just reaching out and grabbing that gift... our own human nature.

Mankind Is Screwed
You've heard it said often enough - "nobody's perfect". And, well, it's true. Man is inherently sinful. I don't mean that we're all necessarily evil or anything, but we are very self-serving, and we do sin. A lot. Especially in the Christian definition of sin, which not only includes doing things that are "bad", but also any kind of rejection of God in our lifetimes, any turning away from God - ignoring or neglecting God in any way at all, in fact! So yes - everybody has sinned at some stage in their lives, and most do it frequently if not constantly. (You can choose to argue this later on, but for now I'm stating it as a fact.) The problem with this is that Heaven, by definition, is perfect. And in order to be part of something perfect, you have to be perfect. Being "mostly" good is insufficient... a glass of water with a drop of poison in it is still "mostly" water, but you wouldn't drink it. Even one single sin taints a person in much the same way. So what have we learned from this paragraph? You have to be perfect to get to Heaven, but nobody IS perfect! Oh no! Mankind really IS screwed!

The Big Dude
Let's take a break from our panic attacks for a second and take a look at the nature of God. There are a few misconceptions that people have about God, but I am only going to talk about two of the main ones for the moment. One of these misconceptions may reflect how you are feeling now that you have read that last paragraph - a belief that God resembles nothing more than some big angry policeman up in the sky, watching our every move so that He can pick out our every sin and punish us for it, ready to send us all straight to Hell. The other is what I personally think of as the "Santa Claus" God, completely loving and forgiving, willing to overlook all of our sins, dismiss all our wrongdoings and welcome us back with open arms like children who've been a bit naughty. Neither of these ideas quite cover the truth - the truth being that God is BOTH perfectly loving ("I have loved you with an everlasting love" - Jeremiah 31:3) and perfectly just ("he does not leave the guilty unpunished" - Exodus 34:7). God loves us and does not want to punish us, but justice must be done, and sins paid for. How can we reconcile these views? There's a story I heard ages ago, I'll do an awful job of telling it because I don't remember all the details, but it does a good job helping to explain.
okay... *ahem*... so, there was this Russian dude. I think his name was Shamille? Something similar to that, and that's what I'm going to use now anyway. So anyway, Shamille was the head of a large camp of rebels living out in the forest. Obviously the conditions were very harsh, and times were tough for the band of rebels, especially because they had very little to live on. One day Shamille's guards came to him and told him that somebody had been stealing rations from the food supplies. This was extremely serious - as I said, times were tough and they had very little to live on. So Shamille sent out an order that whoever was caught stealing rations was to be publicly whipped, before the whole camp. This helped for a while, some time went by and no more rations were stolen. However, one day Shamille's guards returned to him with the news that rations had been stolen again, and this time the thief had been caught. Shamille did not hesitate to send out word that the thief was to be publicly flogged at sunset the following day. However, his main guard pulled him aside and quietly informed him that the thief was his own elderly mother. It was too late to prevent word from spreading around the camp, and they were divided on the issue. Some said "He must punish her - how would we be able to respect and follow a leader who shows favour to some of us over others? We are supposed to be equals." But others said "He can not punish her - how could we respect or follow the orders of a man who has his own mother beaten? Old and frail as she is, she will surely die." The whole camp gathered at sunset the following day, to see what Shamille would do. The guards brought Shamille's mother out and stood her in front of the camp, and Shamille called for the punishment to be carried out. But as the entire camp was about to burst into uproar at this, Shamille took off his shirt and placed his body over his mother's, and gave the order for the whipping to begin. In this way, Shamille both fulfilled the need for justice to be done, and his love for his mother.
The action Shamille took for his mother in this story is very similar to what God did for mankind - only He performed this action through Jesus Christ.

Dropping The J-Bomb
Well, you all knew that Jesus was going to come into it somewhere, and here He is at last. As I described earlier, Jesus was - is - both God and man. He came to earth and was the only human ever to live a perfect life - Peter himself, a man who lived and travelled with Jesus for years, said "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). As history tells, Jesus was crucified. In so doing, He took upon Himself all of the punishment for the sins of mankind. He then resurrected from the dead, and in doing this He made it possible for all men to do the same. I'll explain it again in a slightly different way, because this part is pretty tricky. Jesus, being a man Himself, was able to take punishment on behalf of all mankind. Being perfect, He was the only man worthy - and able - to do so. I'll explain in a second. And being God, He both had the authority to do so, and the power to conquer death on behalf of mankind.
Going back to the part about Jesus being worthy as a sacrifice: many people don't see the need for Jesus to have died, or how our sins can be "passed" on to Him. Firstly, the sins weren't passed on - He took them on our behalf. And secondly, He was the only man who could have done what He did - partially because He was the only man who could have conquered death - but more importantly, because He was perfect and free from sin. If any other man had taken punishment, he simply would have been taking punishment he already deserved, rather than taking undeserved punishment for someone else. And if the punishment *could* be taken by any other man, that would make Jesus' life, and death, one colossal waste (which for me is too depressing to even bear thinking about).
That was a distraction, which I was trying to avoid, but that's something I feel needs to be addressed, or it causes great confusion in general. But to sum up this part, Jesus died and took God's punishment on our behalf, meaning that our sins have already been paid for, and made it possible for us to go to Heaven.

What Next?
Well, what do we have so far? There's a free gift being offered to us, and though we can't take it on our own, God has made it possible that we still CAN take it, through Jesus. So if you believe what's been said so far, then the next step is the logical one - accept the gift! I make it sound quite simple, and it is rather, but there are just two things that really need to be taken into consideration.
Faith: It only stands to reason that if someone who loves you gives you a gift, you acknowledge that they gave you the gift - thank them for it - and trust in the integrity of its contents. Eternal life is no different - in order to accept it as a gift, you need to be able to acknowledge that it was Jesus who gave it to you, and trust that it is everything He claims it to be. Faith is more than just the "blind faith" Christians are so often accused of by atheists - it is more than asking for help when you're in trouble - it is more than just going to church a lot, or praying a lot. Showing faith, asking for help, praying, attending church, these are all good things, but they do not constitute faith. There is a logical (if you accept the premises that I have presented) and historical basis for Christians to believe what they do, but faith is more than just "knowing" that, as well. Faith - saving faith - is acknowledging Jesus Christ for who He is - the son of God - and trusting in Him, and Him alone, for your eternal life.
Repentance: I already discussed this before - so I'll just run over it quickly for you - your sins are forgiven, but you must be truly sorry and make a genuine effort to turn away from your sin - you shouldn't stop seeking forgiveness just because you know you can get it at any time.

I made that last section sound pretty complicated, but it really isn't... if you trust, and believe, that you are going to Heaven because Jesus has taken the punishment for your sins - then you will go to Heaven, because He has. The "turning away from sin", the "doing good deeds", all these things are not required, but rather stem from gratefulness and a desire to do what is right - all of which comes from faith. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

And, um, that's about it. Hope that helps people get a basic idea.

[Mackay]

So yeah, eykir, just to answer your question in a more specific manner, the Bible DOES lay out ground rules, and it is good to follow them, but it is not expected that we will always be able to do so. And it doesn't matter if we don't, because our sins have been paid for, and forgiven. So therefore while it's good, and recommended, that we follow these "ground rules", the only *requirement* Christianity has is faith in Jesus.

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Antrax]

[Mackay]

Mainly what Antrax said.

As I have stated elsewhere, the argument for "there is no God" is equally as conclusive as the argument for "there is a God". (Less so, in my case, but it varies.) If there were any 'proof', so to speak, then there would be no argument. It just depends on what you define as proof.

[Antrax]

No, it doesn't. Proof belongs to the realm of logic, and is very well-defined. You can either show how it follows by deduction from a common premise, or you can't.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Chuck]

Is God bound by logic or is it something He created for us and it applies only to our universe? If our logic doesn't apply to God is there any point in discussing Him? If the attributes that we think God must have are logically contradictory maybe it's because our logic is inappropriate for the problem.

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Antrax]

That's not a proof, that's a statement. Allow me to prove God exists:
Principle of Antrax: God exists.
See? very convincing, wasn't it?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Mackay]

Antrax: it may be that you are right about there being no proof - I agree in a material sense. But I think that there are things that can happen to a person, which can be taken as proof in their lives that God exists. *shrug*

Chuck: I would be inclined to say that God is not bound by anything, and that logic was indeed created by Him. However, I think that that does not necessarily mean that discussing His existence is pointless. And I agree with your last statement. It's like the whole "making a rock so big He can't lift it" thing.


Anyway, on with the ranting.
This is an excerpt from an email I wrote to a friend not long ago, when he asked me why I believed in God - a "logical" reason (or, as Chuck pointed out, as close as things like this can come to being logical), as opposed to a faith-based one. It's mostly stolen from C.S. Lewis, and not explained half as well as he did it, and it's not very well written because it was just an email, but I can't be stuffed rewriting the whole thing.

I'm not going to pretend that this is anything other than my own specualtion, based on some reading that I've done. But I thought I'd put it up anyway, seeing as people keep asking why they should believe in God.

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Antrax]

Would you be so kind as to explain what a "case" is? Is the Principle of Antrax a case for God?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Antrax]

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Mackay]

hmm, Ant, you are probably right about the formal definition of logic. But "it looks likely to me" does not cover it. I am talking about people who can have their entire opinion on the matter changed, and decided, by a single event, whether it occurs in the world, or simply in their minds. But I will concede that my definition of logic is probably off. However, just because something (proof? I don't know a better word) is intangible, does not trivialise its impact.

[Antrax]

The most common such "proof" I know is the holocaust. Many people became atheists after surviving it (or hearing about it), with arguments like "what kind of God would allow that to happen?". Not very compelling formally, but it worked for them.
Phil the Rodent, so what ARE you saying? You told CP he has strong convictions because he's not swayed by the "cases" for the non-existence of God. Now you say you're not arguing God doesn't exist, and that a case is just something you put your clothes in. So, what are you trying to say, really?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Antrax]

Okay. If I ever try to talk someone into believing in God, I'll be sure to tell him that.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Phil_The_Rodent]

Hehe.

I think this is where we ran into the problem: my statement is not one that reinforces the existance of God, it's a statement that supports belief in the concept of God. It's a statement of why you do something... "Why do you believe X" doesn't require you to prove X, it just asks you to support your belief that X. It is not equal to "Is X correct?". Anyways...

[Antrax]

What a shame people don't get to choose their beliefs, or this could have been of any interest.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Phil_The_Rodent]

lol

[Eykir]

That was a very good read, Mackay Thank you! *sproings stuff in the house* I liked the example of the general, too. It illustrates your point well, in a way that I've never seen presented before.

I did look back and I didn't see if you addressed it, and I couldn't find it. What is sin? I saw a lot of talk about sinning, but not what a sin was.

[Mackay]

Thanks, oh sproingy one. I actually went back and changed my stupid analogy just so I could make it you, and put sproingy things in the house. *sleep-deprived giggle-age*

Sorry about the sin thing, I kinda semi-mentioned it in a way you might have missed, but I didn't lay down a solid definition. I believe what I said was that "sin is not just 'doing bad things', but also rejecting/ignoring/neglecting God in any way" - it's the 'bad things' I didn't clarify. But I don't know if there is one set definition that encompasses all sin. I hate to not have some kinda snappy response - not even a sproingy one - but the only thing I can really say is that sin is what God said was sin, i.e. whatever is called a sin in the Bible.

I just googled to try and find a Christian definition of sin, and I found something pretty hefty on a site called "christiancourier.com". Looks like a good site, so I'll go with it. Pretty huge definition though.

[Guest]

[casinopete*]

above was me.

[doormouse11]

phil the rodent,

[Antrax]

~concurs about the Hebrew part. It's indeed "don't murder"~
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Eykir]

[Courk]

[Agamemnon]

'Not Agamemnon'