What is being a Christian?

[quietthinker]

I can see the lady takes comfort in Christianity but I think she also has an agenda.
Only one participant is interested in the truth and how to obtain it.

agendas!....hmmm, I guess we all have agendas but not all have an interest in truth. Interestingly, Jesus said, 'I am the truth'.....a bold statement if ever there was one. We all will evaluate this and decide to our enlightenment or lack of it, the truthfulness of it.

 

[Mancunian]

agendas!....hmmm, I guess we all have agendas but not all have an interest in truth. Interestingly, Jesus said, 'I am the truth'.....a bold statement if ever there was one. We all will evaluate this and decide to our enlightenment or lack of it, the truthfulness of it.

She had an obvious agenda against Islam, she seemed unsure whether she actually believes or whether she can't accept that there is nothing.
I never liked Dawkins much, I find his demeanor rude and condescending but it's hard not to agree with the points that he made.

 

[quietthinker]

She had an obvious agenda against Islam, she seemed unsure whether she actually believes or whether she can't accept that there is nothing.
I never liked Dawkins much, I find his demeanor rude and condescending but it's hard not to agree with the points that he made.

Truth according to Jesus is a person, namely himself. That's quite a different approach to truth being an abstract idea.
I guess we decide who to believe.

 

[Mancunian]

Truth according to Jesus is a person, namely himself. That's quite a different approach to truth being an abstract idea.
I guess we decide who to believe.

Truth isn't really an abstract idea, to suggest that it is makes a mockery of the justice system.
The next time that I'm in a court of law and they ask me to swear on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth I'll just say that truth is an abstract idea and that Jesus is the truth, then hope that I'm not adjudged to be in contempt of court.

 

[quietthinker]

Truth isn't really an abstract idea, to suggest that it is makes a mockery of the justice system.
The next time that I'm in a court of law and they ask me to swear on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth I'll just say that truth is an abstract idea and that Jesus is the truth, then hope that I'm not adjudged to be in contempt of court.

Irrespective of what any system says, Jesus says he is THE truth. We could ask, the truth of who or what? I propose he is saying, the truth of God, the way to God and the life of God.
Is he a liar?

 

[Mancunian]

Irrespective of what any system says, Jesus says he is THE truth. We could ask, the truth of who or what? I propose he is saying, the truth of God, the way to God and the life of God.
Is he a liar?

I'm not qualified to provide explanations or answers to questions about what Jesus said.

From what I have read and understood from what I have read about Jesus I've come to the conclusion that he was a good man, I wouldn't have thought that Jesus would have condoned the idea of burning in hell for eternity... I suspect that this nasty idea came later and from Paul.

I'm not an idiot, I've read the Bible and wouldn't have come here if I hadn't.

 

[newnature]

Irrespective of what any system says, Jesus says he is THE truth. We could ask, the truth of who or what? I propose he is saying, the truth of God, the way to God and the life of God.
Is he a liar?

John 3:16, God gave his only son, the cost behind the love, love is proven not by words, but by what it is willing to give. Jesus did not say God felt love, he said God gave and what he gave was not excess, not convenience, not something replaceable, he gave his only son. These words carry a weight that cannot be rushed past, to give a son is to give the future, to give an only son is to give everything. This was not a poetic phrase meant to sound dramatic, it was a declaration of cost, God’s love would not remain distant or theoretical, it would step into flesh, it would walk among those who misunderstood it, it would endure rejection, betrayal, silence and suffering. The giving began not at the cross, but at the incarnation, when heaven chose limitation and eternity stepped into time, Jesus knew where this road led.

John 3:1-16 is not spoken from ignorance of the cross, it is spoken in full awareness of it, the Father did not send the son hoping things might work out. This was not an experiment, it was a rescue mission designed before the foundation of the world, the giving of the son reveals that God’s love is intentional, costly and irreversible, this is where the verse stops being sentimental. The price of love was bloodless in the moment Jesus spoke, but it was already decided, love would absorb judgment, innocence would stand in the place of guilt. The son would carry what the world could not bear and the Father would allow it, not because he lacked power, but because he refused to lose you.

 

[Mancunian]

If the gospels had complemented each other instead of directly contradicting each other Christianity may well have gained countless followers in the polls.
I can't believe that the message was so jumbled, It should have been crystal clear. Nobody should have to rely on faith and personal experience.

 

[newnature]

If the gospels had complemented each other instead of directly contradicting each other Christianity may well have gained countless followers in the polls.
I can't believe that the message was so jumbled, It should have been crystal clear. Nobody should have to rely on faith and personal experience.

Belief admits that effort cannot save, knowledge cannot redeem and morality cannot restore what sin has broken, belief is an act of humility before it is an act of faith. John 3:16, this may be one reason Jesus did not say whoever behaves or whoever achieves, he said believes. Faith is the only response that matches grace, anything else turns salvation into a transaction, belief shifts the focus from what you bring to what God has done and that makes it accessible to everyone and controllable by no one.

 

[newnature]

If the gospels had complemented each other instead of directly contradicting each other Christianity may well have gained countless followers in the polls.
I can't believe that the message was so jumbled, It should have been crystal clear. Nobody should have to rely on faith and personal experience.

You have to deal with what this has to say.

 

[quietthinker]

If the gospels had complemented each other instead of directly contradicting each other Christianity may well have gained countless followers in the polls.
I can't believe that the message was so jumbled, It should have been crystal clear. Nobody should have to rely on faith and personal experience.

The jumble occurs when one has a skewed understanding of what one thinks it's trying to achieve.
The whole burning in hell thing as it is generally understood in Christian circles is a take over of pagan views.