And that is fine. Even God allows you to believe as you wish. And I wont take that right away from you, to be certain!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> But just because some on this planet want to believe the Holocaust didnt happen, does not mean it didnt happen. Just because for years, people didnt believe that the Baths at Bethesda outlined in the Bible was an actual place, doesnt mean it wasnt. Archeology uncovered it a few years ago. And just because anyone doesnt believe He!! exists, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. One subject we have never broached here is what does God say He!! is...what is it like. It is not what many people have believed it is. But we will save that for another day!!


That is scary. Of course, I never said that! Of course what religion that you are doesnt matter. But whether you have a personal relationship with Jesus does matter. Not religion...a relationship.

Everything I have done wrong (sins) has been put on my account. I must pay. And the wages of sin are death. I earned death with my sins. The difference is that someone else decided to pay for my sins instead of me. Someone that could pay for them, die...and still live. None of us have that power.


What is your definition of good, first of all? Good in comparison to what? Or whom? Sure, I might say that I am better morally than the rapist. But he might say he is better morally than the mass murderer. What is your or any of our definitions of good? You see, God's definition is a lot different than man's. Good is sinless. Anyone you know ever walk this planet and get out of here without sinning? That is except Jesus? Nope. Which means that no matter how good, we arent good enough to pay for what we have done. And make no mistake...we did this to ourselves.

You say God is not loving if He is like this. On the contrary, it is the ULTIMATE in love to be this way. God gave us free will. We were created by Him in order for Him to have someone to love and to have someone to love Him. But in order to REALLY love Him, we had to be given the choice NOT to love Him. This God says that if you love Him, you will obey His commands. But none of us do that! None of us can do that. Sure, Adam and Eve could before the Fall. But, then they screwed up.

So, God gave the choice to Adam to eat or not to eat. To love God and obey, or to love himself more and do it his way. And he chose himself. At the basis of all sins is the sin of pride. That I get to choose now..I get to decide. And God says "Yes, you get to decide. But with that choice comes consequences. Good and bad"

If I spent my life as Mother Theresa did and help the poor and try to live for God, and then I see God just handing out passes to whomever He wishes...how would I feel? One thing I would know...that I served an immoral God who has no desire for justice, morality, holiness. It would make Him as sinful as me.

Now, some would say that God could just pardon our sins. No He cant. He cant do that and still remain holy and sinless. A pardon is to ignore the sin. But to ignore it is immoral and unjust. And God is not capable of being those things. Yes...there are things God cannot do...and still remain who He is! If God did something unjust or unholy or unloving...then He would destroy Himself. Because He has said that He is Love. Not that He has love. He is love as a state of being.

So, God has a predicament. He creates man and woman to love Him and to be with Him...and man rejects Him. With that rejection, man should have been destroyed. But remember, he loved us enough to give us free will so that we could choose to love Him. So now, how is He going to take sinful man, and bring him/her back into the fold. Back close to Him. Man cannot come near God (which is the reason we were created) while being sinful. We would be destroyed! Just as the darkness is destroyed when you turn on the light.

So, God had to send someone to pay for those sins. To make us sinless again. Someone had to pay. Someone had to take the consequences for our actions. So, He sent His Son to do it. Jesus was the only one that could do it. So, He became a man so He could take man's sins. And thus, a loving God didnt leave us in a no-win situation that was set up by Adam. Instead, He found a way to help us out of our situation. But in that, we did NOTHING to get us out. Not one of our good deeds helped us out. Not one of our bad deeds pushed us further away. Only the actions of Jesus took care of this.

So, this loving God sent grace Himself to do for us what we could never do ourselves. And all we can say is "Thank you." Or we can reject Him.

I have a quick analogy that shows this point. There once was a judge in Australia who's best friend had been caught embezzling funds. His friend could get 25+ years in prison for his crime. On the day of the hearing, his friend stood before the judge. As the evidence came out, it was clear that his friend was guilty as charged. Newspapers the day of the hearing wondered what this judge would do. If he woul recuse himself. or is he would try to help his friend by giving him a lighter sentence or letting him off entirely.

But this judge had a duty. He would have been a corrupt judge, just as sinful as his friend had been, if he had gone light or let him off. So, as everyone stood by, the judge rendered the verdict. And that judge threw the book at his friend. Thirty years in prison, and a $500,000 fine. The gallery couldnt believe it. His friend stood there shaken.

But as the gavel slammed with his verdict, the judge then did something interesting. He stood up, and stepped down and walked over to his friend. And with tears running down his face, he told his friend the following. "Friend, you deserved everything that you just got. But, because of our friendship and because of my love for you, I sold my house yesterday and I paid your fine. I also signed the sentence, with the decree that I will serve your jail sentence." And with that, the baliffs led the judge away to prison.

Nellie, that is LOVE!!! That is what God has done for us. Now, that friend could say "No judge, I cant allow you to do that." But then the friend would have paid.

In our case, we can so "no" to allowign Jesus to take our sins and pay for them Himself. But then we have to. The problem is, we have to pay with our life. And with that payment, we are dead for eternity. But Jesus paid for it with His life. But in His case, He didnt stay dead. Something NONE of us are capable of doing!


As I have said, you misperceive who God is. he is not tyrannical...although He is God. Which means He gets to set the rules. When you make your own universe, then you can make your own rules. Until then, He is God. But He is a loving God and has chosen to give us free will. And to have us join Him in running this Universe.


And what if yo uare wrong, Nellie? God is kinder. He gave us a way out of the mess that WE created. If you choose not to accept that, He is kind enough to let you make that decision. But He is under no obligation to then pardon you when you show up and say "Well, I decided to do it my way...counting on you to love me enough to overlook my rejection of you, of your Son and what He did."

As I have said before, we choose Heaven. Or we choose He!!. And God WILL honor that choice. And there is such a time as "too late to make the choice."

Again Nellie, you have what the Bible is saying all wrong. I used to have the same arguments that you do. That is until I came face-to-face with Jesus. I had to answer that question "Who does Mortarman say Jesus is?" And all of us MUST answer that question.

C.S. Lewis outlined the only three possible answers to that question. Either Jesus knew He wasnt God but said He was...and that would make Him a liar. Or He didnt know He wasnt God, but said He was...which would make Him a lunatic (mentally not all there). Or He was who He said He was. Which means He is God and what He said is true.

Jesus wasnt just some nice guy. History records that He claimed to be God. So, we must all decide if Jesus is a lunatic, a liar...or the Lord.

Once I saw that these were the choices, then I had to make a life decision. An eternity decision. If I choose one of the first two, then who cares? We all then die and that's it. Case closed! But if I chose one of the first two, and He is the Lord...then I am in trouble BIG TIME. I have rejected Him and basically said that I do not love Him.

So, I chose Jesus as Lord. And with that, I met Jesus for the first time. I know Jesus personally. We converse almost every day. Now, for someone that might think that Jesus is a lunatic or liar...then I would be nutz to say that I talk to an invisible being that doesnt really exist. But if He is who He said He was, then my talking to Jesus really isnt so far fetched, is it?

I saw the other day on TV a Jewish man that lived thru the Holocaust...who had been at one of the death camps. He came face-to-face with one of the guys who said that the Holocaust never happened. Now, the guy who said it never happened, still walked away after talking to the Jewish man...still saying that it didnt happen. It didnt matter when the Jewish man showed him pictures. Or showed him the number tattooed on his arm. That guy just said "Those pictures are fabricated. That tattoo is just something you did to yourself." There was no convincing that guy, even with an eye witness right there in front of him.

There are people that I will deal with in my life that there is no way I will ever convince of who Jesus is, and of their dire predicament. even though I am a friend of Jesus. Even though I know Jesus personally. Even with all of the evidence that points to Him being exactly who the Bible says He is. Even with all of that, many will make excuses. "I cannot believe that. That cant be true. Maybe it was this, or that." Making excuses.

But God has said we will stand before Jesus without excuse. There is only ONE sin that causes us to end up in He!!. And that is the sin of rejecting Jesus. It is a willful choice to reject Jesus. And by extension, that makes it a willful choice to go to He!!. And God will honor that choice because He loves us enough to keep His promise.

In His arms.

MM:

And what do you suppose will happen 2 that Jewish man you saw on TV when his time comes? You don't have 2 answer, I already know. I don't agree that it will, but I do know.

"C.S. Lewis outlined the only three possible answers to that question. Either Jesus knew He wasnt God but said He was...and that would make Him a liar. Or He didnt know He wasnt God, but said He was...which would make Him a lunatic (mentally not all there). Or He was who He said He was. Which means He is God and what He said is true."

The problem with the Bible, is that it wasn't peer-reviewed. Neither were C.S. Lewis' writings, unless I'm missing something. I would think that the possible answers number far more than 3. Some additional possibilities are obvious, but might be offensive 2 some. They aren't meant 2 be:

*Jesus may not have claimed 2 be God. I was raised in Christian Science (which I realize many "Christians" label as a cult), and was always taught that he did NOT claim 2 be God. For example, "I and my father are one" didn't translate in2 "I am God" 2 us. (sidebar: The Christian Science textbook is also not a peer-reviewed publication).

*Jesus may not have said or done the things attributed 2 him, as recorded in the Bible. Here's where peer-review would have helped a lot. If half-truths or embellishments were in the draft gospels, they could have been corrected before going 2 print. This doesn't mean that the gospel is untrue, but it is true that there is no independent corroboration of the specific events described in them.

*Jesus may not have existed. I'll say no more, because I know that would offend many, and it really isn't meant 2. But whether he did or not is an interesting historic question. Ac2ally, that doesn't completely describe how I feel about it. It's a FASCINATING 2uestion, absolutely not less. Who knows what truths might be gleaned by searching for independent proof that he lived. ...kind of a 'personal Jesus' for me, I suppose.

-ol' 2long

Well said, WAT.

Mortarman,


Well that rather eliminates all the non-Christian religions, as well as the many Christian ones that don't incorporate that personal relationship stuff.


You can't get much more tyrannical and self-centered than handing out get out of jail free cards on THAT basis!

Good luck, Nellie.

In His arms.

What an interesting conversation. I have very little to add. JL and WAT and Nellie and 2Long cover most of what I would say quite well.

MM: As I say to all my friends who pray, please do give God and Jesus my kindest regards. I hope they're doing well. I'm quite sincere in my request. I really do hope they're well.

I also thought it was interesting that you said it's not about a religion, but rather about a relationship. You are, I suspect, absolutely right. In my view, the relationship you're talking about provides a grounded center -- compassionate and ethical -- from which it is impossible to do harm to yourself or another. It is a place free from sin (in the sense that sin is harm to oneself or another) because it is impossible to BE sinful in that that state.

So where do we diverge? It's all in how we name that connected relationship. I choose to believe that "Jesus" is not the only available name for the Entity and Relationship you speak of.

Well, we probably diverge in at least one other way, too. Since I wear cotton blends pretty often, well, I'm lousy at following ALL the strictures in the Bible. (Yes, I know, those who know me are now choking on their Pop Tarts. Really sorry about that, but there has to be -some- humor, here! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

And I really am enjoying this conversation. (Err, well, most of it. I really don't like name-calling and stuff.)

2Long, from someone of your intellect, I would expect more than unsubstantiated opinion. Whether or not someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior is a decision based in faith. But the existence of Jesus, that he lived approximately 2000+ years ago is a "settled matter" historically. No one argues that he did not exist because the proof is overwhelming.

That said, there are only 3 possibilites remaining with respect to who Jesus is (since the 4th, that of him merely being a myth and not a real live person has been proven false). Therefore the question really is a simple one of comparing all that is known about him to determine which of the remaining 3 possibilities is true. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

"That said, there are only 3 possibilites remaining with respect to who Jesus is (since the 4th, that of him merely being a myth and not a real live person has been proven false). Therefore the question really is a simple one of comparing all that is known about him to determine which of the remaining 3 possibilities is true. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?"

Ac2ally, that makes 5: The C.S. Lewis trio, plus your new 4th about mythology, plus my suggestion that he never claimed 2 be god, but was misinterpreted as having said so.

In the end, though, you can always find comfort in the knowledge that:

What 2long says does not matter...

...does not matter...

-ol' 2long

I happen to agree with FH that there appears to be a large body of evidence that a man existed ~2000 years ago who became to be known today as Jesus.

As to the actual state of his existance, I thought FH also agreed, based on prior statements here after I suggested it, that another possibility was that he was a charismatic man, a teacher/carpenter/whatever who was very wise and garnered quite a following. His Elevation came later as embellishment to myth status.

My personal hypothesis is that the embellishment was, in part, a response to Roman beliefs by the authors of many texts (some of which became the Bible) - including depiction of the virgin birth to compete with Roman leaders' claims to be decended from their gods. Turned out to be a good strategy.

Over time, some myths become accepted as fact by many people. Who knows? Over the next 2000 years, there may be a faith/myth that develops based on the ample evidence of another charismatic man - bolstered by the moniker already established. The "King." aka Elvis <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

2Long & WAT (saving a little time combining y'all <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />) - The hypothesis/opinions that you are stating are, as you can imagine, nothing new. The reasoning is quite clear, and valid by the way, that IF Jesus is not who he said he was, did not fulfill all prophecies concerning him, and most importantly did not rise from the dead, THEN some "other" explanation other than "he is Lord, The Son of God, The Son of Man, all the other titles attributed to the eternal Word of God" MUST be true. Conversely, IF he is who he said he is, then all the other "musings" must be false.

It IS a fairly simple investigation to preform. The "key," if you will, is understanding that there are two fundamentally different "investigations" going on at the same time.

The first simply addresses the historicity of the documents, events, etc., concerning Jesus. In other words the "body of evidence" much the same as would be examined in a court of law today.

The second concurrent investigation has little to do with the "facts" that are being examined. It is a matter of FAITH. It is a matter of CHOOSING to accept or reject Jesus as one's personal LORD and Savior in response to the facts that are examined and established. There are many people who have concluded after the first investigation that while it was true, they were still not going to accept Jesus as THE Savior and Lord of their lives.

One cannot be "forced" to accept Christ, no matter how strong or overwhelming the factual evidence is that supports him as the Messiah promised in the old Testament. It is, by command of God, a personal AND individual CHOICE that everyone must make for themselves....to accept or reject.

Beyond that we get into the realm of "truth." Regardless of what any of us "chooses," TRUTH is independent of what we may sincerely believe. TRUTH will continue to operate and be "governing" regardless of what anyone believes. A common example of this would be if someone, or some group of people, decided that the "law of gravity" no longer applied and they were rejecting it as being operative in their own lives. If they chose to step off the roof of a tall building to "prove" the sincerity of their belief, they would be proven "sincerely wrong." The rest of us would be sweeping up the mess with brooms and shovels, even possibly admiring the sincerity of their beliefs and the goodness of their intentions to prove the rest of us "gravity believers" wrong.

This is pretty much the same sort of situation that we have with the "debate" over evolution and creation. They both require a "leap of faith" because neither can be subjected to the "scientific method" and are essentially "inferred" by default based upon one's belief, or rejection, in the existence of God and that he created by his will and design or that everything happened by pure chance according to the "Laws of the Physical World."

It also speaks to Nellie's assertion, JustJ's assertion, etc., that ANY "religion" or "no religion" is fine and "co-equal" in value and TRUTH. Once again, IF Jesus is NOT who he said he was, then they are right. However, if he IS (and obviously I believe he is), then no matter how sincere someone may be in their choice of "belief," they are wrong and the pavement awaits and the sweepers are readying their brooms and shovels.

Jesus, the historical person, actually existed. The events surrounding his ministry are documented extensively. The "body of evidence" is there. It does not await a "lynch mob," "emotionally driven" summary judgment. It awaits an honest, careful examination by skeptics who SHOULD examine the body of evidence carefully and without bias BEFORE reaching a personal decision. This IS, whether or not as 'jurists' we want to be on a "Capital Trial," exaclty what this is. The decision reached, the verdict embraced by the jury, determines eternal life or eternal death for the individual....because we all represent ourselves, not someone else. THE Judge of the universe "accepts" our personal verdict and imposes the sentence that verdict demands just as (if you'll pardon a biblical analogy) God imposed the sentence of "choice" on Adam and Eve based upon their choice. We received the "death penalty," but solely because God still loves us, he chose to intervene and provide a substitute for us for the penalty so that we could "choose again."

We are still choosing today. Choose wisely is a caution we all should embrace in all areas of our lives, including the question of accepting or rejecting the historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth as BEING the Son of God, the Messiah, as our personal Lord and Savior.

But this is getting way off topic for this thread. So if either of you would like to discuss it further, we should take it to another thread. There is such a thread already in existence where Myschae and I have been talking. You could join that discussion or we could do a separate thread if you'd prefer. But as you both have surmised, it begins (and actually ends) with WHO Jesus of Nazareth really was. All the other "issues" are ancillary to that question, debatable for sure, but ultimately irrelevant if Jesus is NOT the Son of God, the eternal Word of God.

And the gift goes on.....

God bless.

The problem with the embellishment theory is that it goes against the historical evidence we have about Jesus.

First, historical evidence shows that He was crucified because He had inflamed the Jewish leaders.

The second historical fact is that the reason that He inflamed the Jewish leaders was that He claimed to be God.

I have a text I saw which I will add here that kind of illustrates the fact that Jesus did live, and did claim to be the Son of God.



I have more, but do not have access to it now.

Suffice it to say, the historical evidence we have points to Jesus being alive in the time the Bible says He was and that Jesus did claim to be the Son of God. Again, I will bring more evidence shortly.

More than any other person during that time, we have evidence of these things. So if we accept the historical evidence of other people who lived in those times...then why dont people accept the historical evidence for Jesus that is out there in far greater numbers?

Mythology or Jesus never said He was God arent viable choices because the historical evidence proves that He did live and He did present Himself as God.

More soon...

In His arms.

FH - I agree with just about everything you posted immediately above.

Not wanting to re-engage fully on this topic again, I don't agree that "choosing" to accept evolution over creation (as explanations for the origin of species) requires faith. It only requires acceptance of the scientific method as the process best suited to discover facets of evolution or whatever other natural explanations for the diversity/origin of species may exist. Evolution and creation are in different ball parks - one natural and the other super natural. This point, if accepted by all, would end the so-called "controversy." Indeed, as you say, "...two fundamentally different "investigations" going on at the same time."

Here's your very good point that bears amplification:

How "overwhelming" the evidence may be is, of course, debatable. But your main point is indisputable > it's a personal AND individual choice to accept or reject. BRAVO!!!

Why then, do many Christians feel compelled to "help" everyone choose to accept? Why not just allow people to make their own choice as you so eloquently argued for above? Why attempt to introduce Christian-specific doctrine into the public square over countless other choices? Don't answer that you need to "advertise" so that individuals are aware of the choice you think they ought to be making - ample advertising has already been done. In fact, an easy argument to make is that "pushing" too hard has the effect of turning people off. If your choice is so obviously the right one, like the better mouse trap, people will buy it.

WAT

WAT, you make me smile, especially the part about the White Sox. The previous year, it was the Red Sox. Divine intervention? Hmmmm... Come to think of it, was Johnny Damon not the spitting image of FH's and MM's good friend JC? Yes, the Red Sox won the series with help from Jesus!

Okay, I'm off to check for writings from Jeffrey Dahmer, since he and I are supposedly cut from the same mold....

I liked your White Sox remark, too, WAT! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

MM, do you ever stop? Can't you see that you TURN PEOPLE OFF AND AWAY from the things of God with your PREACHING.

I've been there, MM (as I told FH, also). I was deeply involved in a fundamental Baptist church for years... went door to door... asked perfect strangers if they died tonight do they know without a doubt they were going to heaven... debated with Mormons and JW's... I was the church secretary, for crying out loud! That doesn't mean I *know* it all, but it does mean that I've pretty much heard and seen it all.

Jesus Christ, to me, is about love. I know there's other sides, ect. ect. ect. I know all about judgement, but personally, I'll let Him do the judging, NOT ME. I've had this argument on this site more times than I can count (under my prior moniker, obviously).

I know what's right and wrong, so don't (please!) lump me in with heathens for not calling a sin a sin... I understand sin... I undersand we all sin... but there's NO WAY you will convince me that taking a pen from work is the same kind of sin as a child rapist (which I will not only call "wrong" but will go against my disbelief in the death penalty and pull the plug on the creep myself)... no way it's equal... certainly not in the eyes of the God I worship.

Well, no, that's not what CS Lewis did. This is what Lewis said in a radio broadcast on the subject of what Christians believe:

IOW, he outlines the only 3 answers he saw to the question of whether Jesus was merely a great moral teacher as opposed to Lord and God. Lewis assumes that one cannot be a great moral teacher if he is either lying or mentally ill.

Is that the case? Maybe so, but but at least one person roughly contemporaneous with Lewis, George Bernard Shaw, had no trouble considering Jesus to be both a great moral teacher and mentally ill, as Shaw makes clear in his introduction to his play Androcles and the Lion. I don't have my copy in front of me, but I believe the term Shaw used was "monomaniac". One does not have to agree with Shaw (and I do not) in order to realize that if just one person can accept the possibility that Jesus (or anyone) can be both a great moral teacher and mentally ill, Lewis's argument doesn't work.

Certainly we have contemporary evidence that one can be both mentally ill and a teacher and discoverer of mathematical truths in the person of Nobelist John Nash. Nash's biographer reports that when a friend asked Nash how he could have believed his irrational delusions, Nash replied he had to because they came to him in the same way his mathematical discoveries did. One can make a case that moral truths are different from mathematical truths in a way that would make a mentally ill person unable to teach the latter even if they could teach the former, but one has to make the case, not merely act as if it is self-evident, as Lewis did in his his radio address.

WAT - some good questions worthy of comment and possible debate. So let's try a few short answers and not get too involved at this time.



A number of reasons, most of which are grounded in human nature and being "immature in the faith."

For example, there is often an overwhelming realizations of just how serious the rejection of Christ is, and human nature being what it is, they take the "Great Commission" as not only something that needs to be obeyed, but they "jump to it" with emotional fervor so that others will not be "eternally lost." In effect, it causes a type of "evangelical jihad" that is based in WORKS. But they have not yet come to the realization that it is GOD, not any human, who draws someone to accepting Christ. All that Christians are supposed to do is witness for the Gospel, to plant the seeds if you will. But the parable of the Soils makes it quite clear about the various responses that will be encountered. The hard part for many neophytes to understand is that it is NOT their responsibility to convert anyone. They can't do that anyway. They are to witness so that all are "without excuse," "have been given the news," etc., AND they are to stand ready to give an answer to those who might inquire as to WHY they believe, or to defend their belief when attacked by falsehood to "correct the record" and not let falsehood lie unanswered that might mislead someone else who is observing and seeking answers.




Not only SHOULD everyone be allowed to make up their own minds, that is a command of God. That does not negate putting the facts out there so that people CAN evalute the facts and arrive at a conclusion on their own. It also is sometimes necessary to "correct the record" when opinion is offered as "proof" in opposition to Biblical truth.




Okay, the phrase "public square" is a bit too broad, because it seems to be saying that Christians should keep their mouths shut no matter where they are. I suppose that has been the "prevailing thought" of people opposed to the Christian message since the beginning, so it's not a new idea.

Now I am only speculating, since you offered nothing more specific, but I assume you are referencing at least two "major" areas of "public square," schools and anything connected in some way to the government of the United States such as public/government buildings or land.

Suffice it to say that in the "arena of thought," one does not usually argue for censorship. Yet that would seem to be the direction your are headed with this question. Beyond that is the matter of the Constitution of the United States. To paraphrase the Constitution: Congress shall make NO law concerning the establishment of a "State Authorized Religion" AND shall make NO laws ABRIDGING the FREE (from restrictions) exercise of religion.

What has been happening is (in my opinion) a twisting of the Constitution to essentially "lie by omission" by focusing on, and talking about, ONLY the "establishment" prohibition. But the FREE EXERCISE of religion is left out, along with the tacit restriction on FREE SPEECH.

Essentially the argument can be boiled down to discrimination against Christianity in specific, if you examine what has been put into practice. It IS a decided and purposeful attempt to "silence" Christian speech in the "public sector," and to "abridge" the free speech rights of Christians because someone doesn't like it.

This is just my opinion, but it would seem the antithesis of the "American Way of Life," not to mention unconstitutional, to PROHIBIT the free speech rights of Christians no matter where it occurs. It does not matter if it's a monument to the 10 Commandments (which by the way, strictly speaking, are Jewish and not Christian), or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or teaching Creation in schools. It is the "arena of ideas" and the right to free speech.... FREE from BOTH Congress choosing ONE religion as the recognized "State Religion" (ala England, or Iran, or any other such example) AND from Congress (or the Courts) limiting the free speech and expression of it's citizens, be they Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or any religion.

So that's a few brief comments in an attempt to try to respond to some of your questions. Feel free to expand if you'd like.

NB2 - I'm not exactly sure what seems to have "tripped your trigger" with what MM said, but perhaps I can take a stab at clarifying. Both MM (I am sure from what he has said) and me DO NOT believe that "all sins are the same magnitude." Neither does God, from what is revealed in Scripture. (Just look at Christ's allowance for divorce due to adultery and the faithful spouse who might later remarry NOT commiting a sin by doing so)

But there is fundamental difference between ANY sin and NO sin. It is the presence of ANY sin that is anathema to God and is what would keep us eternally separated from God, sans the "second Adam" who reestablished a "No Sin" life that could be offered in substitutionary stead for us.

Sin is "equal" only in the sense that ANY sin is enough to prevent fellowship with a sinless and holy God. It's a bad analogy, but it's sort of like a "little touch of evil" can be tolerated because nothing of "major" import has happened YET.

The STANDARD is established by God. It was established when he created Adam and Eve. That standard is willful submission to God's will and NOT committing that which God has proscribed, no matter how "big" or "little." It's an "absolute." But because ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Christ was NEEDED to provide the "bridge" back to God despite our sin-nature and despite any of our sins, big and small.

But do not equate that with no diffentiation in "magnitude" or "volume" of sin. God WILL dispense both punishment for those in he11 and will withhold rewards in heaven based upon how we HAVE lived our lives. God DOES "rank" sins according to HIS will. The key "difference" is acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ and His substitutionary atonement for us. The "best" in he11 is still far worse than the "least" in heaven.

I hope that clarifies things a little.

God bless.

No, elspeth, I disagree. That is NOT what Lewis was saying. Lewis was NOT making a "general statement," although I think it would apply in most cases, but he was speaking SPECIFICALLY about Jesus and the claims by opponents that Jesus could be a "good moral teacher" no matter if he was crazy and didn't know truth from fiction OR if he was a deliberate liar. If he was crazy, he just "got lucky" that some of the things he said happened to make moral sense. But "no one comes to the Father but by me" and "I am the Christ" are just a couple of things that have huge moral impact that could be said by a "crazy person" but NOT TRUE. Being "not true" would make them NOT good moral teaching. But Jesus proved their truth by His resurrection and, in so doing, destroyed such notions as those put forth by Shaw.

To be a "good moral teacher" implies that they both KNOW what they are teaching is right and they back it up with their life.

John Nash was not teaching morals, he was suffering from schizophrenia and was hallucinating.

Shaw was attempting to reconcile admittedly great moral teaching with his refusal to accept the teaching as coming directly from God. So he invents the notion of "monomaniac" to reconcile HIS choice in his mind to reject Christ. After all, if what Jesus taught WAS so moral and "binding" then he had to invent some way to justify in his mind that Jesus was just another man and not God. NO facts whatsoever to support his contention, just his mental fabrication. The problem with that is an examination of Jesus, his teachings, and what was done NEGATES any chance of mental illness and Shaw's hypothesis crumbles under the facts.

Hi, ForeverHers. I did not assert the above. I’d appreciate it if you would correct your statement. Thanks muchly!

MM, it amuses me how steadfastly you decline to chat sometimes. Really, though, tell God and Jesus I said Hi. They’re good people to know.

Somehow, this seems apropos of this discussion:

If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets
And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

JustJ -

That's why we followers of Jesus go with the verse that "What you do unto the least of your brethern, you do unto me".

Praying last night I did tell HIM hi from JustJ.

First off, I'm not preaching. I am just answering the questions posed. To ask some to stop preaching is akin to saying "look, I dont like what you are saying so please shut up." Not very nice, NB. I did not nor will I say "NB, will you stop preaching. Just because you view things that way, you should stop going on and on." THAT would be disrespectful.

On your question of whether the sin of stealing a pen is the same as rape...I have answered that. No, the two sins are definitely NOT the same. Not the same in God's eyes either. The issue I posed was that without Jesus dying for those sins, then both of those sins lands the thief and the rapist in the same place. The same penalty. If you have been in a fundamentalist church, then you know this.

The wages of sin is death. Not some sins...ALL sins. No matter how minor. No matter how major. Even one small sin makes us fall short. even stealing the pen.

I obviously have lost my ability to converse in a way that others can understand what I am saying. I am NOT saying all sins are the same. Some are more heinous than others! And God says that too.

But I am saying the penalty is EXACTLY the same for every sin...and it is death. Only Jesus can save the thief that stole the pen from eternity in He!!...just as only Jesus can save the rapist from the same fate.

If this were not true, then what Jesus did on the Cross would be irrelevent. If we could somehow earn our way in or earn our way out...then it will be always "Jesus PLUS something else." Jesus is sufficient. We will never be.

I have explained this in previous posts on this thread and others. Yes, God is love. But as FH so adequately explained...He loves us enough to allow us to choose He!!. And the pen thief...apart from the saving grace of the Cross...chooses He!!. Just as the rapist...apart from the saving grace of the Cross...is just as doomed because of his decision. THAT is love. It is love because God is allowing us the utmost in respect by honoring our decision. He gives us choices. We decide. Fair enough!

I liken all of this many times as pigs in a mud pit, trying to argue who is dirtier. We are ALL dirty...all covered in the filth of sin. The only way we can come into the presence of a holy God is to be cleaned up. If we even have one speck...due to how clean he is...would destroy us instantaneously. Notice I didnt say God would destroy us. I said due to his nature...and our sin...we would be destroyed by his very presence.

But He loved us enough to allow us a way out of the predicament Adam dumped on us. Sure, we can blame Adam for starting this mess. But each of us chooses to continue it.

I guess that's enough "preaching" for now. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

In His arms.