So Why Is The Gospel Still An Offense?

[Wildy]

Well did you ever think about these people killed themselves for their beliefs which could very well be wrong (in fact I know they are)?

But how do you know that they are in fact wrong? You are aware that there are adherents of other religions that would say that you are wrong, and that they "know" that they are right. It's just like you "know" that you are right.

Say what you will but no one has ever disproven the validity of scripture. And then there is much more evidence but you have to be truly seeking God I guess before you can find him.

But do I have to have a sincere belief to find God, or can I find God just to determine whether there really is a God and which specific God that is?

And what type of evidence will I look at? Anecdotal? Mathematical? Because it sure isn't scientific.

Here's another list incase you missed it the first time "Non Christian Resources for the Evidence of Jesus"http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm#ch9

Actually the section that you specifically link to does not have any citations at this time.

But from what I've read the author hasn't actually mentioned anyone who was a contemporary of Jesus.

However, even if you can show that Jesus existed, it still does not show conclusively that Jesus was the son of God.

 

[Robin]

I don't mind the suggestion that I am so completely evil that I deserve nothing less than an eternity of torture.

What I find a little bemusing, though, is the suggestion that if I cap off this villany by one final act of cowardice and wriggle out of my just punishment on a technicality, I am thereby deserving of an eternity of blissful reward.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well did you ever think about these people killed themselves for their beliefs which could very well be wrong (in fact I know they are)? In the case of the apostles and martyrd Christians they were tortured and killed by others who were against their faith in Christ. To me the differences are obvious, black and white, no contest.

Actually, you don't seem to understand the Roman Empire much.

1. The Romans couldn't care less about what God you believe in, as long as you don't openly deny the gods of the state. They had no problem with Isis, Mythras, Cybelle, Zoroaster (well, ok, the actual god was Ahura Mazda there), they even reached some unesy truce with judaism. Mostly because most jews learned to keep their mouth shut about what they thought about Roman religion. But if you started saying that their gods are false and demons, they drew the line there.

Basically: don't be an arsehole and go around telling people that their gods are false, because that makes them unhappy. And then they can make you unhappy in return.

So, um, "martyred for being a troll" doesn't really have the same ring to it, ya know?

2. The Christians had started causing major trouble in the name of their religion.

An easy example was refusing to serve in the army, when the Empire's economy and manpower had been hit hard enough to need mandatory conscription again. They obviously liked the Roman state enough to still stay there and benefit from all the services and safety it provided, but help defend it like everyone else? Nah, then they remembered "thou shalt not kill."

Sometimes they were even more openly rebellious than that. E.g., there are authors contemporary with Nero who thought that the christians set fire to the city. And it sure didn't sound unbelievable to the population when Nero blamed it on the Christians, you know?

If you tried to pin arson on, say, the Dalai Lama or Gandhi, everyone would say "wtf, are you nuts?" But everyone in Rome apparently had no problem believing that Christians would be capable of starting a fire.

Christian propaganda also didn't go easy on Rome and more generally the Empire. Rome was routinely slandered as being the "whore of Babylon" and other unflattering names.

The early christians made themselves as hated as they possibly could. And the backlash was based on just that, not some confirmation of Christ.

So again, most of what we have there are cases of martyred for being an annoying troll.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's incredible to me that someone can think being human and having human emotions is sinful.

 

[Ysidro]

So it's obvious christians dying for christianity is different than muslims dying for islam or buddists dying for buddhism, why? Because they're christian? Because you say so?

Bah, I'm only bothering because I'm bored. Might as well get my post count up.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Actually, you don't seem to understand the Roman Empire much.

<snip>

Basically: don't be an arsehole and go around telling people that their gods are false, because that makes them unhappy. And then they can make you unhappy in return.

So, um, "martyred for being a troll" doesn't really have the same ring to it, ya know?

Absolutely! Even the very early church had to deal with people (notably the Montanists) who sought to provoke the authorities into judicial murder. Christian leaders discussed provocation a lot and had to start ignoring and refusing to grant martyr status to those who'd tried a bit too hard to win instant admission to Paradise usingwhat we might call 'suicide by Romans'. The Romans seem to have found all this a little distasteful. Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic, for instance, wrote that suicide was ethically unobjectionable, as long as it was done in good style and 'not, like the Christians, in a spirit of theatricality'.

Refs: Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, 30-31, 52.

 

[Anerystos]

I just tried, proudnonbeliever!

There's a pack of them patrolling outside: I think my post must have attracted them. The one who banged on the door to invite me to something which "I would call Easter", but they apparently don't, didn't even rise to the bait of "Actually it was a pagan feast anyway". I didn't find out what they do call it.

Actually, I don't know if it was a pagan feast, but it sounds like it would have been a good excuse for a spring equinox booze up (sebu?) with all the associated trimmings.

I think they are JWs: anyone know what they call the sebu?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well just because you don't believe in sin does not prove there is none. Why should I believe that?

Well just because you believe in sin does not prove there is such a thing. Why should I believe that?

Evil is everything unholy or pure which is obviously everywhere in this world as we know it.

For this definition to work, you first need to define the following:

• unholy
  
  
• pure
  
  
• obviously
  
  
• everywhere

"this world as we know it" is a bit iffy as well.

We fall short of Gods standard all the time in this world, he did not intend it to become this way but he knew it would when Adam and Eve disobeyed.

He should have flooded Eden. It wouldn't have taken as much water as that Noah thing and he could have had a fresh start much earlier on.

I do get upset because after that everyone was doomed but Jesus made a way and that is good news.

We're all doomed mate. Get over it.

I define evil as to what the Bible says is evil.

Well, there's your problem. If you used the Harry Potter definition life would be much simpler and your arguments would be more credible.

Start with the 10 Commandments first, . . .

Which set?

Please explain the nature of the evil that is proscribed by Exodus 34:26

You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

Not my cup of tea, but "evil"?

. . . then in the New Testament defines what the deeds of the flesh are verses the deeds of the spirit... Gal. 5:19-21

.The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I assume that's a paraphrase of something, since it lacks a complete reference. Here's an actual quote:

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Please explain your reasons for believing in the evil aspects of:

• idolatry
  
  
• witchcraft
  
  
• variance
  
  
• emulations
  
  
• wrath
  
  
• strife
  
  
• seditions

You can skip heresies. I already know about those.

 

[linusrichard]

Is it the message of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that you find offensive?

Not in the slightest. It's a very nice story.

Or is it the Christians who share the message with you?

Some of them, yes.

Over and over I hear people stating mostly it’s the Christians they find offensive rather than Christ.

This makes sense. Christians (ETA: not all Christians, just some Christians) are more offensive than Christ. Say, why do you find Christ's command to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor so offensive?

If you judge Christ by his followers

I don't, rendering the rest of the sentence irrelevant.

I also think it best to remember Jesus said it is not the well that need a doctor but the sick so Christians just have gotten to a place where they agree with God and they know they need a Savior then we repent and follw his teachings.

So you are posting from the public library then?

Do we do it perfectly no, but we admit our need for forgivess as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

That is the nice thing about Christians - even the annoying/offensive ones at least appear to have this humility. Even if it is more lip service than reality.

If you could truly have the gift of repentance then you would know it’s all true.

I decide what I think is true based on evidence, not on what feels good.

So again I ask if God has made a way of escaping judgment for each of us

He hasn't, rendering the rest of the sentence irrelevant.

The message of the cross is only foolishness to those who are perishing, but the good news is you still have time to change your mind and receive what Jesus did for you on the cross. He died for all of us so we could be reconciled to God, what’s so offensive about that?

There's nothing at all offensive about it. What's offensive is people shoving it in my face as though it were true, when it's not.

 

[Ducky]

Jesus even said many would suffer and be killed for following him and all through history we have certainly had much evidence for that!

Over the past 2000+ years, how many people have been killed for being a Christian as opposed to those that were killed by Christians in the name of God?

You'll find one of those numbers outweighs the other. Once you weigh in the 11 crusades, Religious wars between protestants and catholics, the medieval inquisition (and of course nobody expects the Spanish inquisition), you far outweigh this list of Christian martyrs. But let's not keep this focus so narrow, how many people over the history of man has died in the name of *any* religion or god?

Killing in the name of God is popular and always has been. Before you go all self-righteous about being a Christian and attempt to paint another religion as more violent look to your own religion's past. Offhandedly I cannot come up with a single religion that hasn't killed in God's name. I have yet to hear, however, of Buddhist monks slaughtering infidels wholesale in a holy war to retake China. There was a war in the 14th century involving Buddhist monks however I am pretty sure that wasn't done in any God's name. They were fighting to oust the Mongols who weren't known for their polite demeanor and non-violent conflict resolution skills.

So you're displaying a marked lack of history lessons in your "studies." Perhaps you should stop reading propaganda and actually do *real* study.

You want to know what's offensive? You making yourself out to be persecuted when you Christians have pretty much run the show for a while now, and done a whole lot of killing of others in the name of it.

ETA:

I don't expect any kind of serious answer from kathy, this post is for the readers. If I had to guess, I'll bet on a response of preaching and a whole lot of "I don't know, but GOD IS GREAT" and some talk of "studies."

 

[joobz]

No one but Jesus lived a sinless perfect life. He was the only acceptable sacrifice to redeem this lost world. God requires holiness which only Jesus is. Jesus did not claim to be a prophet, he said he was God!

Mohammad even admited he could not live a perfect holy life and had doubts about himself and his faith.

But then you have proof that Jesus is isn't perfect, even in context of his own scripture. He condoned slavery and gave rules by which slaves are supposed to live by. This either means that we are wrong today for abolishing slavery, or that Jesus was wrong about the morality of slavery.

Shouldn't thiis prove to you that Jesus wasn't perfect and therefore NOT god?

 

[Ladewig]

I define evil as to what the Bible says is evil. Start with the 10 Commandments first, then in the New Testament defines what the deeds of the flesh are verses the deeds of the spirit... Gal. 5:19-21 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I know at least three people who have never displayed those emotions or engaged in those activites. If these people are not evil, why do they need forgiveness?

 

[Ducky]

I know at least three people who have never displayed those emotions or engaged in those activites. If these people are not evil, why do they need forgiveness?

Often Bones had to forgive Spock for being Vulcan.

 

[Ladewig]

Kathy, I am still curious as to why you are here. The Bible clearly and unequivocally indicates that it is time to move on

Matthew 10:4) If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet.

Mark 6:11) If anyplace will not receive you or hear you, shake its dust from your feet in testimony against them as you leave.

Luke 9:5) When people will not receive you leave that town and shake its dust from your feet as a testimony against them.

I do hope you are not being prideful in posting here (after all that is evil and sinful). A lesser Christian might believe she is being persecuting for posting on the JREF board, and thus obtaining God's favor:

Matt 5:11-12) Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

You are not being persecuted or reviled. You are merely being scolded for refusing to learn, you are being chided for making the same mistakes for years on end, you are sometimes taunted for preaching instead of discussing, and you are somewhat frequently faulted for not having an open mind.

So if the Bible tells you to give it up and walk away, why are you still here?

Why do you have so little regard for Jesus's own words!?

 

[joobz]

Kathy, I am still curious as to why you are here. The Bible clearly and unequivocally indicates that it is time to move on

I do love how the bible blames the people hearing the message for it being a crock.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Is it the message of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that you find offensive?
Or is it the Christians who share the message with you?

Both, actually.

Over and over I hear people stating mostly it’s the Christians they find offensive rather than Christ. If you judge Christ by his followers then you are not seeing him right since Jesus was the only sinless being who ever lived. I also think it best to remember Jesus said it is not the well that need a doctor but the sick so Christians just have gotten to a place where they agree with God and they know they need a Savior then we repent and follw his teachings. Do we do it perfectly no, but we admit our need for forgivess as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you could truly have the gift of repentance then you would know it’s all true.

I have no problem with christians believing whatever they want, though I regard their beliefs as immoral. My major beef with christians is that they won't leave me alone. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Simple as that.

So again I ask if God has made a way of escaping judgment for each of us who would not want to take it?

I would not want to take it. Assuming god exists, it's immoral for him to judge me for actions that don't concern him in the first place, and it's certainly immoral for him to presume to forgive me.

It's like if somebody stole my car and then a third person who had nothing to do with it walked up to the thief and said "You've sinned against me in stealing this car, but I forgive you." That is immoral, and I want no part of it.

 

[truethat]

Kathy I'm glad you responded and I want to point something out. In the beginning I answered why I did not trust the gospel and why I felt God was evil. When you have God doing pretty much the same kind of things as Hitler (Goodwin's law I know I know) the KKK and other "Evil regimes" then he seems pretty evil to me.


Now why I think Christians are also evil is blindly following what God told them to. I have a friend of mind, a very very good friend, who once told me that if God told him to rape a woman he would without hesitation, but only if it was really and truly God saying it.

Now to me, you and my friend have both demonstrated that you turn off the brain switch when it comes to decency.

How can you argue that killing in the name of God is justified because God said that this would happen?

How can one say that they would rape a woman if God really existed and God told him to.

When I say "blind faith" I don't mean it in away that Thomas's story relates to, rather in that you will obey without thought and more importantly without RESPONSIBILITY. That responsibility you lay on "God."

I think stoning someone to death is evil. I think demanding a blood sacrifice is evil. God demands these things. Why is it you don't see that these actions are evil?


It is the "without thought" "complete obedience" of many Christians that is frightening. It is the refusal to take responsibility for your behavior that demonstrates a crack in the veneer of faith.

Here's an example of a moral question.

During the Holocaust many Jewish families went into hiding. Some of those families had babies at the time. If the Getaspo was knocking on the door and the Jewish family is hidden in the walls of a house of a non Jew a very dangerous situation presented itself. In some of these types of situations a crying baby would reveal it all. And so sadly in some of these cases in an attempt to muffle the baby the baby would be suffocated and die. Sometimes the baby's liability became evidence before the situation presented itself and the baby was suffocated early on.

I use this example because it represents the "spiritual peril" in which many Christians claim we live. I also use this example because in this case a crying baby would put at risk all the other members of the home. Should all die for the sake of one? Christians say otherwise they say that "one will die for all." This was a "blood sacrifice" for the good of the group.

In this regard in reading the story most of us will have a sense of somber gloom. It is a sad reality, we consider what it must have been like for the family of the baby and also for the person who had to do it. This sense of responsibility weighs on the hearts of all.

Christians seem to toss Jesus up on the cross and then dust off their hands and walk away from it all. Jesus according to scripture made the sacrifice, he saved lives and took away sin. However

Here's the big however


He didn't take away your responsibility for that sin, and he also instructed you to sin no more. Christians often treat Jesus as a get out jail free card with no sense of a moral responsibility to live a moral life.

It would be for example like this


After Josef killed the baby in the attic he realized how easy it was to save other families in the same situation. So in the dark of night he slipped out and went around rapping on other people's door whispering, just accept the sacrifice and kill the baby, it is easy, one two three. And when those family's with babies recoiled in horror saying "I'm not killing my baby, that is immoral I'd rather die with the baby than murder the baby!" Josef tells them that they're not seeing the "bigger picture." He says that they are allowing their ego to cloud their judgment. He also tells a tale of the horror they face in Auschwitz and the day of judgment that is coming soon when the Gestapo finds their whereabouts.

The family says that Josef is evil because he is contributing to the evil of the bigger picture in his sad desperation.

Now the odd thing is this. Had Josef not run out to try to convince the other family's to tell them what to do, most people would have tremendous sympathy for him and what he did. But at this point people become disgusted by Josef. Just as many people become disgusted by Christians doing the same thing.

When I say I do not accept Jesus, I mean I do not accept God's plan. I do not accept that blood sacrifice is the way it needed to go. Jesus may have died but he did not die for me. I reject his sacrifice as I would never allow someone to suffer and die for me unless I am prepared to take responsibility for it. It seems to me far too many Christians say they acccept Christ's sacrifice and then act as though it is those other sinners who are responsible for it. Thus I don't believe you when you say you accept this Grace. If you did accept this grace, if any Christian accepted this Grace, they would be too ashamed and humbled to ever present themselves in such an arrogant manner.

When I see a God who turns a blind eye to the suffering of man it is the definition of evil. Eli Weisel has said the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. God watching the cruelty that has been done in his name and not stepping forward to protect or help bespeaks either an Evil God or a God that doesn't exist, at the very least , not the God of the books.


When I see a Christian going around telling others that they fail to see the "bigger picture" and threatening us with Auschwitz and telling us to just kill something to solve the problem, I see a person who is so irresponsibile, he or she believes that by refusing to take responsibilty for their behavior they've found the answer to the meaning of life.

As to Jesus, I'm sorry you did that, but I can't accept the sacrifice. I would not have allowed you to, if I am so flawwed that this God feels the need to punish me for eternity, I gladly take the punishment. I would never allow someone to die for me based on such twisted evil rules.


Accepting the sacrifice means playing the game, it makes you complicit in God's evil game, and some of us just simply refuse to play.

 

[shadron]

Shadron -- the Pope is not always infallible. He may be infallible when speaking on specific issues of the Faith on which he has, as it were, consulted Upstairs.
"Total Papal infallibility" is a misleading term, and not even believed by the Pope himself!

I guess I did learn something from all those convert-to-be classes, MK

Yes, Miss Kitt, you're absolutely right. As the article says, the definition of papal infallibility was made official (that is, an article of faith) in 1872; before that it was believed by most Catholics, but was not necessary to be believed to be a "good Catholic". It has since only been invoked formally one time, in 1950, to define the BVM's Assumption into heaven (i.e., she didn't die). The formalism of the Pope's infallibility is his promulgation of the belief ex cathedra^WP, which involves only matters of faith and morals, consultation with he appropriate Vatican bodies and the congress of bishops, and a number of ritualisic steps. The promulgation of the Immaculate Conception was formally done in 1850 before infallibility was defined as an article of faith, but is still assumed to have been infallibly delivered, as the formalities would have been had the doctrine been developed earlier.

Wonderfully malleable thing, canon law. In the right hands.

I don't think I used the term "total Papal Infallibility". I wouldn't make book on his baseball recommendations, even if I believed the doctrine, you can bet.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I find many believers offensive, too. But I hope Kathy is not scared off of this thread.

No hope of that happening.

I still think this can turn into a productive, or at least interesting, exchange.

No hope of that happening. At least from KK's side.

 

[Nankay]

No one but Jesus lived a sinless perfect life. He was the only acceptable sacrifice to redeem this lost world. God requires holiness which only Jesus is. Jesus did not claim to be a prophet, he said he was God!

Mohammad even admited he could not live a perfect holy life and had doubts about himself and his faith.

If you believe what is written in the Bible, you must recognize that Jesus also had doubts about himself and his faith. Did he not pray to god to "take away this cup of suffering" while in the Garden? And while on the cross, did he not ask why god "had forsaken" him? Sounds like he either didn't know who he was or his "destiny" or lost his faith in the mission.

I might also argue Jesus showed a bit of a temper when he destroyed the moneychangers/merchant tables in the Temple. Is willful detruction of personal property not a sin on the list?