He is a strange duck, and tells us that it's impossible to "figure Him out". He tells us that His ways are higher than our ways, and that we can't understand Him. No, "simply 'loving Jesus'" isn't enough. And yes, if you do the things that get your misdeeds forgiven, then all is forgiven. Unfortunately for many, they don't believe it.
He doesn't say it's just as good: He says that (btw: If by "repent" you mean the Biblical "repent and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, a death He died in our place") there isn't a difference in who will live with Him forever. He says that living life the first way isn't good, and the second is. But no amount of charity or church attendance justifies your unholy actions as holy. Mother Theresa is no more able to earn her way into Heaven than Ted Bundy. The life she lived was more in accordance with what God says to do, obviously. Depending on your view of the end times and Heaven, she'll be in better stead in Heaven for what she did with the time and resources she was given on earth, but to say that she's more qualified for Heaven or whatever isn't what God tells us in the Bible.
I'm not that sophisticated. I just meant "do whatever it is that He requires to get into heaven." So it still seems like, even if I kill 6,000,000,000 people, I can muscle Mother Teresa aside and get into heaven ahead of her (and thus get the comfy chair by the window). I just have to do some certain stuff, not sure what you call it, but I can do it right before I die even if I've killed everyone else on the planet. And then I'm golden. So why go to church? barfo
I wouldn't call it muscling her aside, I'd say "just as much right through our own efforts". There are many biblical examples, but the thief on the cross is one that gives many hope. He's been a criminal--so much so that he was being crucified, but he did the only things that God says we have to do to be justified in His eyes and get into heaven: repent of what you've done, and believe that Jesus is Who He says He is and that He did what He said He did. So yes, if you killed everyone on the planet, and then repented of it and accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, you're in. So God says, at least--and I believe Him. Though it sounds very easy to "be golden", our nature isn't set up for it. That's residue from the Fall of Adam and Eve. No one's saying that helping people isn't pleasing to God. No one's saying that we need to live a hedonistic, narcissistic life because we're covered by Jesus. Romans 5 and 6 are tough chapters (heck, Romans is a tough book) to understand, and implications of the teaching are far-reaching. Obviously I recommend reading it instead of taking my word for things, but the short answer for your "why go to church?" question is community. Church is the body of believers, not a building you go to on Sunday morning. It's a way to be encouraged, taught, held accountable, exhorted. It's an outlet for you to teach, help, serve, grow. There are people there you need, and people who need you. That's a crazy and great thing about how God's ways aren't ours: that He brings together people whose sole similar characteristic is their devotion to and worship of Him, and that so many blessings come from that.
Well, those community things might be (mildly) pleasing to god, but if I can get out of it by using my get out of hell free card at the end, I'm not going to bother with that stuff. Now, admittedly, I don't know what it is that constitutes the get out of hell free card, and maybe I can't pull it off in the end, but killing everyone that annoys me and then repenting seems like a much better strategy than doing a bunch of time-consuming things that he doesn't really care about anyway. barfo
You're distilling WAAAY too much, but the conundrum you're describing has been studied and discussed for 20 centuries. And I'm not smart enough to change your mind. That's between you and God. Jesus speaks of two commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength (some add "mind", since that's from Deuteronomy), and to love your neighbor as yourself. People generally don't have a hard time attempting #2, for whatever reason. But #1 is kind of where I was going with my original hypothesis from Post 3 or whatever: it's generally hard to worship (through faith) something other than yourself and your abilities. Especially, imho, if you feel that you're pretty good to begin with (whether that means intelligent, moral, charitable, whatever). The doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is one that was difficult for me to read and understand at first, because it goes against so many of our "human" or "natural" impulses. (I'd really recommend Pink's book "Sovereignty of God" if you have some time to really chew on a book.) Strobel's a journalist who's put out a couple of books on his research into and discovery of Christianity called Case for Faith and Case for Christ. They're not as doctrinally meaty, but someone who's job is to convey information to the masses wrote books detailing his mindset, journey and conclusions. Better than I can do in hijacking a message board thread, anyway.
we don't know why the fixed constants of nature are what they are, but there's no reason to think they necessarily have to be "written" by an intelligent designer. lots of directly observable purely mechanical processes in nature result in things having emergent properties that are either random or adaptation to environment. constants such as the speed of light could easily be the result of mechanical processes.
you don't understand at all. you keep implying that the truth of a "higher power" should be compelling to everyone, and the only reason an intelligent person would reject it is because they don't like the idea of being accountable to authority. you are not allowing for the possibility that most people simply reject the possibility based on their view of evidence, and would gladly submit to a higher power if they actually thought they had good reason to believe one existed. your hypothesis is definitionally delusional (not to mention incredibly arrogant).
Denny-- You might be interested in this book: http://www.amazon.com/symbiotic-uni...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251384108&sr=1-3 Really interesting exploration of how improbable conditions for life are, and some theories as to why it is so. I enjoyed it. But it's pretty old, though--there are probably better ones out there now.
Here's a simple question... How can so many say well I cant see God, and the Bible was written by man so its fake...BUT yet will glorify science "which is man made" and say its the truth even though its really based upon mans theory's.
because you can prove that relativity exists. You can prove that time goes slower in an orbitting satelite and that space is bent by gravity. You can prove that at the very least micro evolution exists, if not macro evolution. These are things that someone with the proper equipment can go back and take data measurements again independently. Can someone go back and prove jesus did in fact rise from the dead? Although along that same line of thinking, it is hard to prove Julius Caesar was the first emperor of Rome.
If you plan on killing everyone who annoys you and then using repentance as a get out of hell free card at the last minute, you're not truly repenting, and you end up with a go to jail – go directly to jail – do not pass go, do not collect $200 card.
Look man, you just can't understand what a cult means, CrowTrobot's ways are mysterious and above yours. Just accept it.
science is just a method for determining functional truth by learning from observation. it's a practical tool that everyone uses, not a glorified "theory". perhaps by "science" you mean scientific theory that contradicts religious belief, such as evolution?
