Christianity is not technically a religion, as religions require certain efforts to attain (being good enough by works) salvation. Christianity is a relationship between the person and God, and one is saved by simply believing God's Word - faith. The apostle Paul says a man who does no works at all, (and in the original text is in the present tense - continuing to do no works) but believes in a God who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. If you believe God created, Jesus his son died on the cross for all sins, rose from the dead to overcome death, and makes intercession for us, welcome to eternity. Works are for rewards.

Man is helpless to save himself; and as that is true, he also is helpless to maintain his salvation by trying to live up to a certain standard. Instead, the Christian will find God working in him, if the person will allow, to change him/her into the person they should be. Each person has a different level of faith, and some change immediately, some take a long time - some struggles are pretty hard to overcome.

We all struggle with our failures in many areas of life. But we don't give up, we are not defeated because of our faith in what God has done. Death doesn't have its sting with Christians. Read the book of Job - the guy had it all, one of the richest men on earth at the time he lived, and lost everything, was sitting in the dirt with boils on his skin, and was being tormented by his so-called friends about how he had messed up. He never gave up on God, and God didn't give up on him.

Christianity - the true evolution of mankind is not physical at all; it's spiritual. And those who can reach beyond the physical will find the eternal.

The greatest love of all is not love of self, but forgetting one's self in love for others (read that in a newspaper), and that seems to be the theme of the Christian Bible.

As to the above post from Ghmothwdwhso - for one, this is a thread for Christian huddlers. For two, Christianity is not a religion. For three, life only comes from life and that's backed by science and common sense. The first cause of life follows the laws of cause and effect (the basics of science):

The first cause of life had to be alive, all knowing, all powerful (the first cause of the universe), capable of being everywhere at once, and PERSONAL, to be the cause for personalities in people - GOD.

Those that don't believe in a creator, do so with a mind whose logic is contrary to the basics of science as we know it.

74, very good post. Thanks for sharing.

I might add that Paul also says, because we are at liberty - FREE (and I believe that most of our Founding Fathers understood that when setting up this country's Constitution) doesn't mean we have a license to sin; one of the fruits of the spirit is self-control - good works have great value, and as best we can, we are to show our Christianity in our lives.

Paul also says something like this: "The good that I want to do I find myself not doing, and what I know I shouldn't do, that's what I do end up doing." Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?"

Thanks be to God.

'nuff preachin', I'll step back. I'm a sinner who needs God's grace every day.

One thing you will not find in the Bible is the term "free will". people have made that up, because they want to believe they can do good for God.

agree 74 (and tigerball above). great post(s) and accurate assessment of the Christian faith. Paul--perhaps the most inflential Christian of all time---were he alive today would probably post some of the same things here we have: struggles to live the life we want and should, and struggle to do the "right" thing. He, or we, can never be "good" enough. True faith and true grace are concepts so foreign to the world; in some ways it's almost "too easy": eternal life *seems* like it should only be able to be gained by outperforming everyone else, when the reality is not that at all.
thanks everyone for your sharing and God bless.

Christ overcame death, no one else has. Muslims and Buddhists and others reject him as God.

God is perfect. Everything he made was perfect. God did not, however, make man incapable of making bad choices, so free will was entirely involved. Adam and Eve wouldn't have ever sinned if free will wasn't involved - THE CHOICE whether to trust God or instead believe a skillful liar - Satan.

Only God (God is perfect love) could create life. But love's weakness is that love must be voluntary - it's a choice. Adam and Eve were totally responsible for their actions.

God's standard for being acceptable to heaven is perfection. Religions teach that one can attain 'heaven' by living up to a standard. Christianity teaches that no one can be good enough to earn heaven, it's a Gift from God - Grace means unmerited favor. Christ, the Word, the son of God, overcame death and because he overcame death he is the door to heaven - thru his perfect life we are considered perfect by simple belief.

Satan tried to ruin mankind to prevent humans from their rightful place, as heirs with Christ. As heirs with Christ, they would be above the angels, of which Lucifer was No. 1. So selfishness (vanity) on Lucifer's part was his downfall. He became "Satan" which means "adversary." He's been trying to ruin mankind ever since.

The Bible says the 'earth groans and travails (in pain)' like a woman about to give birth, waiting for the curse to be lifted, and the Sons of God to be revealed. In God's time, it will be. That time is closer every day. The wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life, and it's free. The price has been paid.

Ghmothwdwhso wrote: I don't disagree with anyone's religious beliefs, how could I, it is their belief.

What I contend, is that religion is a way for the human mind to try and contemplate the unknown. No more or no less.

Those that don't believe in a religion, possess a mind set that is strong enough to contemplate that our life is just part of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

I would suggest this is incredibly simplistic as a view. It sounds similar to the sentiments of Jesse Ventura when discussing belief in that which is above the natural existence.

I might argue that strength of mind has nothing to do with that which one is able to consider. I don't think a categorical claim can be made, of course, but I'd be willing to wager that I'm not the only one who rejects the notion that there is nothing beyond natural existence not because of the gaps, but because of the problems.

I'd encourage everyone to not use such a sweeping brush as you just did, as well. Broad strokes are more prone to mistakes.

tigerballonline wrote: One thing you will not find in the Bible is the term "free will". people have made that up, because they want to believe they can do good for God.

When did the Calvinism/Arminianism debate come up? I don't think this is the thread for it.

Be a good person. Help your fellow man whenever you can. That is the way to heaven. Jesus would approve.

Good discussion here ... if I may jump in:

I actually posed this on that "other" Huddle website months ago, so I apologize for the repurposed inquiry, however I heard some interesting feedback so I thought I would mine deeper. I am not Christian, nor do I scoff at Christians' beliefs, so I ask the Christians ... why are you Christian? Is it because your parents were Christians, and you were simply raised that way? Are you born-again? Did you grow up unaffiliated, study the Christian faith, and feel that it was right for you? A combination of these things?

In other words, is your faith based on logic? On family custom? Is it blind? Do you question your Christian faith?

My family raised me christian but I was taught by my Catholic teachers to question my faith because it will one day strengthen me. I don't think my religion is necessarily based in logic but my belief in God is.

My spiritual life has been different.
- Raised Christian
- Re-dedicated (born again) when I was 19
- Up and down since then
- Now in the whole questioning phase, as I see how religion can ruin people

(I will say that the heart of my beliefs have never changed)

BigAppleBuckeye wrote: why are you Christian? Is it because your parents were Christians, and you were simply raised that way? Are you born-again? Did you grow up unaffiliated, study the Christian faith, and feel that it was right for you? A combination of these things?

Born and raised Catholic. Now I'm Catholic because I choose to be and somewhat born again...that is, I'm taking it more seriously and striving to live as God's will wants me to.

74Leps wrote: Christ overcame death, no one else has. Muslims and Buddhists and others reject him as God.

God is perfect. Everything he made was perfect. God did not, however, make man incapable of making bad choices, so free will was entirely involved. Adam and Eve wouldn't have ever sinned if free will wasn't involved - THE CHOICE whether to trust God or instead believe a skillful liar - Satan.

Only God (God is perfect love) could create life. But love's weakness is that love must be voluntary - it's a choice. Adam and Eve were totally responsible for their actions.

God's standard for being acceptable to heaven is perfection. Religions teach that one can attain 'heaven' by living up to a standard. Christianity teaches that no one can be good enough to earn heaven, it's a Gift from God - Grace means unmerited favor. Christ, the Word, the son of God, overcame death and because he overcame death he is the door to heaven - thru his perfect life we are considered perfect by simple belief.

Satan tried to ruin mankind to prevent humans from their rightful place, as heirs with Christ. As heirs with Christ, they would be above the angels, of which Lucifer was No. 1. So selfishness (vanity) on Lucifer's part was his downfall. He became "Satan" which means "adversary." He's been trying to ruin mankind ever since.

The Bible says the 'earth groans and travails (in pain)' like a woman about to give birth, waiting for the curse to be lifted, and the Sons of God to be revealed. In God's time, it will be. That time is closer every day. The wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life, and it's free. The price has been paid.

Buddhist's have various folks/deities who overcome death as well. Hell, the Boddhisatva, a being who stays on earth, in a state of perpetual suffering and delays going into nirvana, whatever you want to call it, in order to help other human beings to achieve that state. The being suffers, and chooses to suffer, in order to help others to reach that place of eternal bliss.

Sounds rather Christ-like, no?

BigAppleBuckeye wrote: Good discussion here ... if I may jump in:

I actually posed this on that "other" Huddle website months ago, so I apologize for the repurposed inquiry, however I heard some interesting feedback so I thought I would mine deeper. I am not Christian, nor do I scoff at Christians' beliefs, so I ask the Christians ... why are you Christian? Is it because your parents were Christians, and you were simply raised that way? Are you born-again? Did you grow up unaffiliated, study the Christian faith, and feel that it was right for you? A combination of these things?

In other words, is your faith based on logic? On family custom? Is it blind? Do you question your Christian faith?

I am, believe it or not, convinced of the truth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures because I logically find them to be the most likely. I am convinced of a personal, loving God because of my experience, but prior to that, I began studying the Bible with the intent to put the Christian worldview to rest in my mind. I was raised a Christian ... son of a pastor ... but while my parents were excellent examples, most of the church I grew up with was terrible at answering my questions, and sadly played a leading role in me not ever really becoming a Christian myself.

Too many of my questions were answered with "because God made it that way" or "because we have faith" or "his thoughts are higher than our thoughts."

Now, I'm not opposed to any one of these being true, but when it's ALL you hear, and no rational possibility can even be posed, it gets tiring and disenfranchising very quickly.

I felt like the only person in the sea of a congregation that was actually questioning what I thought.

I began reading. Mackey, Camus, Russell, Husserl, Dawkins, Sagan, Nietzsche ... and I became rather hard-line convinced that there was no God, no spirit, no heaven ...

Or, you could say I adopted the famous words of Carl Sagan: "The cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be."

I began getting on message boards (specifically the NationStates forum) and blogs (had a Xanga page dedicated to it) and debating Christians. I'd like to say I was pretty good at it.

It hit me one day, though, that I'd never really given Christianity its best shot ... that is to say, I'd never heard the best it had to offer. I was asking Sunday school teachers and lay people. Dare I say, most of those people are not what we would consider biblical experts.

Now, I was still pretty unsure, but I figured I'd give it a fair shake. I began reading a few Christian authors. William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and J. P. Moreland were probably my favorite. I was fascinated by Moreland's book Christianity and the Nature of Science. Most of these did not necessarily convince me of Christianity, but they did let me consider strongly the possibility of a non-physical element of existence ... even a deity. As questioning is always good, they forced me to question my scientific naturalism worldview.

I then determined that, as I did not have any particular interest in college, I would attend college and major in religious philosophy. During that time, I came to believe that biblical monotheism was the most reasonable worldview.

It was over a long period of time. It's not a story where I had some grand emotional experience and "came to a belief" in God. It was over time.

ernest_t_bass wrote: My spiritual life has been different.
- Raised Christian
- Re-dedicated (born again) when I was 19
- Up and down since then
- Now in the whole questioning phase, as I see how religion can ruin people

(I will say that the heart of my beliefs have never changed)

Questioning is never a bad thing. Those Christians who treat questioning as a bad thing do not have enough faith in their beliefs, because they are afraid that their beliefs cannot satisfy the questions asked. A strong faith can withstand probing questions and is made stronger by them.

believer wrote:
Buddhist's have various folks/deities who overcome death as well. Hell, the Boddhisatva, a being who stays on earth, in a state of perpetual suffering and delays going into nirvana, whatever you want to call it, in order to help other human beings to achieve that state. The being suffers, and chooses to suffer, in order to help others to reach that place of eternal bliss.

Sounds rather Christ-like, no?

If you want to follow Buddha, have a nice day. If one wants to believe in Boddhisatvas go ahead.

Christ was not 'just' a prophet. He was God in that he was who spoke all of creation into existence, not a 'god'. (John 1:1)

Christ also died 'once for all' - no need to continue to help others achieve that state by their own effort. Simple belief.

As to the post directly above this one - As the Apostle Paul states in the Bible, Christianity is 'a reasoned faith' - not a blind faith.

74Leps wrote:

believer wrote:
Buddhist's have various folks/deities who overcome death as well. Hell, the Boddhisatva, a being who stays on earth, in a state of perpetual suffering and delays going into nirvana, whatever you want to call it, in order to help other human beings to achieve that state. The being suffers, and chooses to suffer, in order to help others to reach that place of eternal bliss.

Sounds rather Christ-like, no?

If you want to follow Buddha, have a nice day. If one wants to believe in Boddhisatvas go ahead.

Christ was not 'just' a prophet. He was God in that he was who spoke all of creation into existence, not a 'god'. (John 1:1)

Christ also died 'once for all' - no need to continue to help others achieve that state by their own effort. Simple belief.

As to the post directly above this one - As the Apostle Paul states in the Bible, Christianity is 'a reasoned faith' - not a blind faith.

When trying to defend Christianity to a non-believer, you may want to refer to something other than the New Testament. Obviously if I don't believe that Jesus is God, then I logically would scoff at "proof" that is cited from the New Testament.

It's like me trying to prove to you that Spiderman is God, and backing my statement with references from Marvel Comics.

I wasn't trying to bash Christianity, only mentioning that Christianity isn't alone in having a figure who acts as Christ did, many have their own versions, all rather similar, in my opinion.

No way one can prove one or the other is wrong, all a matter of faith. I don't follow Buddhism, just think some of their beliefs and Christianity's coincide, and i find that to be interesting.

World religions are not all that different, at their very core.

Do good things, have a good afterlife. Treat others with respect and love. Etc., Etc., Etc.

There are flood stories all over the world from many different cultures, suggesting that there really was a gigantic flood in the distant past that destroyed the world that was. Almost seventy percent of fossils are found in rock formed by the action of water (the majority of the other fossils are found in igneous rock - volcanic) - a cataclysmic event. Fossil seashells have been found on the tops of mountains.

The details vary widely however. But when the stories are scrutinized, the Bible's account holds up much better than others. For example, the shape of the boat according to scripture, had nearly the same dimensions of today's barges - not built for speed or comfort, but built to withstand heavy waves/turbulence without tipping over.

A Mesopotamian account recently discovered/interpreted says the survivors escaped in a round craft made of cheap material - hardly believable.

Other flood accounts have the survivors escaping in some small raft, or something else that would not have been able to withstand such a disaster.

Interestingly, one of the oldest accounts other than the Bible's about the flood comes from China, the main character being someone named "Nuuh"

Before someone posts that Moses copied a story from, for example, the story of Gilgamesh, there's no evidence of that, in fact it's most likely that most others copied from Moses as he had access to the Library of Alexandria, as he was considered Egyptian royalty and was highly educated for his time. The Bible account is the most believable because of details such as the shape/size of the boat. Note: according to the Bible, Ham, one of the sons of Noah, founded Egypt. Moses could have copied the original account from one of the sons of Noah, a survivor of the flood.
So-called experts suggesting that Moses got his story from copying from the Gilgamesh epic have an agenda.

And interestingly, the reason for the destruction of the earth was because violence filled the earth, people had forgotten God, and had given themselves over to unnatural desires. Marriage had become a joke (marrying and giving in marriage). Sounds almost like today. From Peter: In the last days scoffers will say "where is the promise of his coming, for since the foundation of the world things continue as they have." Peter answers, that is how it was just before the flood.

The above example is just one of many showing the Bible to be superior, not only in its historical accuracy, but in its message.

74Leps wrote: There are flood stories all over the world from many different cultures, suggesting that there really was a gigantic flood in the distant past that destroyed the world that was. Almost seventy percent of fossils are found in rock formed by the action of water (the majority of the other fossils are found in igneous rock - volcanic) - a cataclysmic event. Fossil seashells have been found on the tops of mountains.

The details vary widely however. But when the stories are scrutinized, the Bible's account holds up much better than others. For example, the shape of the boat according to scripture, had nearly the same dimensions of today's barges - not built for speed or comfort, but built to withstand heavy waves/turbulence without tipping over.

A Mesopotamian account recently discovered/interpreted says the survivors escaped in a round craft made of cheap material - hardly believable.

Other flood accounts have the survivors escaping in some small raft, or something else that would not have been able to withstand such a disaster.

Interestingly, one of the oldest accounts other than the Bible's about the flood comes from China, the main character being someone named "Nuuh"

Before someone posts that Moses copied a story from, for example, the story of Gilgamesh, there's no evidence of that, in fact it's most likely that most others copied from Moses as he had access to the Library of Alexandria, as he was considered Egyptian royalty and was highly educated for his time. The Bible account is the most believable because of details such as the shape/size of the boat. Note: according to the Bible, Ham, one of the sons of Noah, founded Egypt. Moses could have copied the original account from one of the sons of Noah, a survivor of the flood.
So-called experts suggesting that Moses got his story from copying from the Gilgamesh epic have an agenda.

And interestingly, the reason for the destruction of the earth was because violence filled the earth, people had forgotten God, and had given themselves over to unnatural desires. Marriage had become a joke (marrying and giving in marriage). Sounds almost like today. From Peter: In the last days scoffers will say "where is the promise of his coming, for since the foundation of the world things continue as they have." Peter answers, that is how it was just before the flood.

The above example is just one of many showing the Bible to be superior, not only in its historical accuracy, but in its message.

Assuming these are all true (which I am not contesting at this time), these are all included in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The validity of these occurences does not prove anything about Jesus Christ and Christianty. Many Jews believe that everything you listed was indeed true, but do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

How exactly is the bible superior in it's "message" based on what you posted?

Extreme arrogance, if you ask me.

And, i would venture to say that none of the flood stories are actually "believable," regardless of where they come from, if you use common sense.

Most mainstream geologists, historians, biologists, etc. have rejected the proponents of "flood geology" in regards to the story of Noah, and call it no better than pseudoscience. It has been quite some time since even biblical archaeologists argued in favor of "flood geology" in support of the story of Noah.

74Leps wrote: If you want to follow Buddha, have a nice day. If one wants to believe in Boddhisatvas go ahead.

Christ was not 'just' a prophet. He was God in that he was who spoke all of creation into existence, not a 'god'. (John 1:1)

Christ also died 'once for all' - no need to continue to help others achieve that state by their own effort. Simple belief.

As to the post directly above this one - As the Apostle Paul states in the Bible, Christianity is 'a reasoned faith' - not a blind faith.

Would you be so kind as to look up Ephesians 4:15?

believer wrote:

74Leps wrote:

cbus4life wrote:What does this have to do with Liberalism?

And, that is a pretty sweeping generalization, and not really based on anything substantial.

Hell, even the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians in the past.

Take a deep breath. I enjoy your posts, but this whole line you throw out all the time is getting old.

I didn't mention liberalism, but believe humanism based on evolution, which is untrue, has led to the moral decay of this country.

Humanism has been embedded in our public education systems - promoting evolution as fact. And in our universities for several generations now. Evolution is not based on science, it's based on a faith/religion.

Humanism relies on the 'goodness' of man, not any higher source, to be able to solve/overcome all problems. The problem is, that what is considered good is relative to nothing other than man's opinions - moral relativism. It's increasingly in our courts and politics. And moral relativism is a slippery slope.

Precisely. Moral relativism at the heart of liberalism. The problem is those who subscribe and blindly cling to it cannot see that secular humanism is indeed a faith (religion) in and of itself. It's worship of self which, as you mention, has been in the human experience since God made us free-agents.

cbus4life wrote: How exactly is the bible superior in it's "message" based on what you posted?

Extreme arrogance, if you ask me.

And, i would venture to say that none of the flood stories are actually "believable," regardless of where they come from, if you use common sense.

Most mainstream geologists, historians, biologists, etc. have rejected the proponents of "flood geology" in regards to the story of Noah, and call it no better than pseudoscience. It has been quite some time since even biblical archaeologists argued in favor of "flood geology" in support of the story of Noah.

I gave one example, there are many showing the Bible historical accuracy much better than any other ancient documents; People who were eyewitnesses wrote about Christ, his life, what he did and his resurrection.

Most mainstream geologists, biologists, etc. are biased and use circular reasoning for their claims (dating rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks for example).

Do you know how a fossil is formed? Rapid burial and compaction. A fish that dies on the beach doesn't become a fossil over millions of years. It is weathered away by wind, sand, bacteria and scavengers eat at it etc. It must be buried suddenly to be preserved.


You sound quite arrogant yourself - AND AGAIN, this thread is for Christian huddlers, not trolls.
But if you'd like to do some reading showing ALL of evolution is false, that Creationism is better science than evolution in every area of science, start here -

http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik

a 'neat' story about evolutionary intermediaries hailed as proof of evolution just got shot down

BY THE WAY, no one can show me a single legitimate, passed peer review example of 'evolution' - (defining evolution as evolution that brings about molecules to man) there's not a single example of empirical science, none, in the real world, only in the fantasies of those who believe in evolution.

Remember this, troll?

Christian (Believers) Huddlers...
Before I start this thread, I ask that those of you who are not believers, and couldn't care less about this topic please:
-Refrain from turning this into a religious debate.
-Refrain from insulting the beliefs mentioned here.
-Refrain from insulting huddlers for their beliefs.
-Refrain from "thread-shitting."
-If you choose to do any of the following, it just goes to show your childishness.

To BigAppleBuckeye -

A book by a former atheist, Josh McDowell called Evidence That Demands a Verdict, is a start, to read about the life of Christ - that he was who he said he was, eyewitness accounts, etc.

74Leps wrote: Remember this, troll?

Christian (Believers) Huddlers...
Before I start this thread, I ask that those of you who are not believers, and couldn't care less about this topic please:
-Refrain from turning this into a religious debate.
-Refrain from insulting the beliefs mentioned here.
-Refrain from insulting huddlers for their beliefs.
-Refrain from "thread-shitting."
-If you choose to do any of the following, it just goes to show your childishness.

74Leps... I am the OP, and I too forgot about this. Thanks for bringing it back up.

Now, can BOTH of you stop, and return to the quoted text here? Please.

Notice... I said BOTH!