|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Oct 31, 2017 0:26:43 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born?
"Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341)
When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?"
If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed?
To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not?
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 31, 2017 1:20:08 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? I would assume God would judge them by a different standard. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 31, 2017 2:18:35 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Excellent point, and one I made back in the old days before I split from the fold. And it was always met with a raised eyebrow, a scowl and one of several deflections that made me sorry that I had asked a question in the first place. And eventually all that piled up into something so big I just couldn't ignore it anymore. I changed sects, hoping the new one would be more enlightening, and it wasn't I looked at other religions, especially Eastern ones, and while they were more soothing (Buddhism) and older than Christianity (Hinduism), I just couldn't shake that feeling of "why is one religion the right one, and every other religion is wrong?" Why wasn't there just one from the beginning? And, of course, I ended up an agnostic atheist. There were other factors involved, I had been raised to think that believing things without evidence was a virtue, but finally reason, logic and science took over. It will be interesting to see what the theists on this board have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 31, 2017 2:54:07 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Excellent point, and one I made back in the old days before I split from the fold. And it was always met with a raised eyebrow, a scowl and one of several deflections that made me sorry that I had asked a question in the first place. And eventually all that piled up into something so big I just couldn't ignore it anymore. I changed sects, hoping the new one would be more enlightening, and it wasn't I looked at other religions, especially Eastern ones, and while they were more soothing (Buddhism) and older than Christianity (Hinduism), I just couldn't shake that feeling of "why is one religion the right one, and every other religion is wrong?" Why wasn't there just one from the beginning? And, of course, I ended up an agnostic atheist. There were other factors involved, I had been raised to think that believing things without evidence was a virtue, but finally reason, logic and science took over. It will be interesting to see what the theists on this board have to say. Of course, that's assuming there is a supreme being, which you say is God. And I am a nihilist, reformed, not an Athiest. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 31, 2017 3:03:37 GMT
I think the general line of reasoning by Christians should be:
It's retroactive to include EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED.
The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection of both "the righteous and the unrighteous"... That means EVERYBODY... and, that means those who were born before Jesus... and only made possible by Jesus' sacrificial life/death.
Of course, the general line of reasoning by most Christians is:
Fck 'em... If they wanted to be saved, they should have been born in America.
The End.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 3:22:37 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Oct 31, 2017 5:50:37 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 13:27:49 GMT
Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 13:47:47 GMT
But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. How's that work if they're already dead? |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Oct 31, 2017 13:49:10 GMT
But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. God's standards changed drastically from before Jesus to after Jesus. So what happens if you like the standards of the OT, but not the ones in the NT? What happens if you have never even heard of God? Will you be judged by different standards? After all, if you have never heard of Jesus, then you cannot reject Jesus, and consequently the argument "you rejected salvation" cannot be used. And given that no rational person will be convinced by the Jesus stuff (because demonstrably, there is no rational cause to believe it), that makes the playing field uneven, against rational people - if they have heard of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 14:11:28 GMT
The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. God's standards changed drastically from before Jesus to after Jesus. So what happens if you like the standards of the OT, but not the ones in the NT? What happens if you have never even heard of God? Will you be judged by different standards? After all, if you have never heard of Jesus, then you cannot reject Jesus, and consequently the argument "you rejected salvation" cannot be used. And given that no rational person will be convinced by the Jesus stuff (because demonstrably, there is no rational cause to believe it), that makes the playing field uneven, against rational people - if they have heard of Jesus. That's not really accurate. God's standards didn't change. What changed was the way to follow those standards and the opportunities presented to others to honor those standards. A nation was no longer needed and rules maintaining separateness were no longer needed since Christians would be noticed by their following Jesus' instructions. There's always been confusion about this because God had a chosen people to implement his standards in a nationalistic way which was done away with since it was no longer needed since Jesus was the better option- an upgrade. The intention since the beginning of the OT was for everyone to enjoy salvation if they wanted it. However the notion of a theocratic government never went away. Everyone at that time will know who both God and Jesus are. How could they not?If there is going to be a physical government that replaces all other governments as prophesied in Scripture, then one would need to honor that arrangement to gain salvation. If they don't, they are no different than the ones who choose other options now. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 14:11:43 GMT
The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. How's that work if they're already dead? Resurrection |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 14:17:12 GMT
How's that work if they're already dead? Resurrection That doesn't tell us anything. Actually kinda silly. Example- Roman soldier X is coming home on his chariot from the bar one night. He may have had one too many, for he veers his beasts off a cliff and dies. Next think he knows, there's a bearded dude in front of him that says, "Hey, you're dead... you can believe in me and go to heaven, or reject me and go to hell." What resurrected moron would choose the latter? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 14:20:25 GMT
That doesn't tell us anything. Actually kinda silly. Example- Roman soldier X is coming home on his chariot from the bar one night. He may have had one too many, for he veers his beasts off a cliff and dies. Next think he knows, there's a bearded dude in front of him that says, "Hey, you're dead... you can believe in me and go to heaven, or reject me and go to hell." What resurrected moron would choose the latter? I have no idea why resurrection being the correct answer would be considered silly. That's the answer and one simply needs to deal with it. Your example in no way exemplifies what may be involved in a resurrection and I agree that that notion is indeed a bit on the silly side. I am not sure why anyone would think that time would not be allowed for people to make a honest choice of what they want to do. What would be the hurry? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 14:30:37 GMT
That doesn't tell us anything. Actually kinda silly. Example- Roman soldier X is coming home on his chariot from the bar one night. He may have had one too many, for he veers his beasts off a cliff and dies. Next think he knows, there's a bearded dude in front of him that says, "Hey, you're dead... you can believe in me and go to heaven, or reject me and go to hell." What resurrected moron would choose the latter? I have no idea why resurrection being the correct answer would be considered silly. That's the answer and one simply needs to deal with it. Your example in no way exemplifies what may be involved in a resurrection and I agree that that notion is indeed a bit on the silly side. I am not sure why anyone would think that time would not be allowed for people to make a honest choice of what they want to do. What would be the hurry? The point is... given the option after resurrection pretty much guarantees that Jesus is the Savior, so what fool would opt for hell? Isn't the point to come to Jesus through faith? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 14:53:23 GMT
I have no idea why resurrection being the correct answer would be considered silly. That's the answer and one simply needs to deal with it. Your example in no way exemplifies what may be involved in a resurrection and I agree that that notion is indeed a bit on the silly side. I am not sure why anyone would think that time would not be allowed for people to make a honest choice of what they want to do. What would be the hurry? The point is... given the option after resurrection pretty much guarantees that Jesus is the Savior, so what fool would opt for hell? Isn't the point to come to Jesus through faith?
I don't believe in hell as a torment place, so I'll switch it out with death and say people choose to die all the time over following God. I't weird that people pretend that all they need is proof and they will all of a sudden become believers. That's not how it works. People do what they want to do, and while the may want to live, they will often try to live by still continuing to do that which will get them killed in secret. It has nothing to do with wanting to follow a particular standard. To go back to the hell example. If I found out that hell did exist and people would be tortured for all eternity, how would knowledge of that actually change my view that it would be a sucky god that would torture someone for all eternity? I may try to fake it but that isn't worship. So whether someone knows that God exists or not is irrelevant if they don't agree with the standards in the first place. After all, most of the characters in the Bible knew God existed including his enemies. A lot of them directly benefited/suffered from him and yet many of them did what they liked. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 31, 2017 14:55:21 GMT
tpfkar But pre-Jesus people get the added benefit of not being in a position to reject Jesus, which most of them would have if given the chance. The benefit is not salvation. It's the opportunity to accept or reject God. They won't be in any different position as those living after Jesus' preaching. Accepting God's standards leads to salvation but we already know most people don't want that. No, most people just believe it is puerile fantasy.
I would say that God wouldn't care one way or another as long as they are treated fairly...which is why there is instruction on it to begin with. The fact is that a slave could be an overseer in the congregation his master goes to because Scripture makes pretty clear that everyone has equal rights within the church if not in society. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Oct 31, 2017 15:02:31 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Everyone from the beginning of time until the end of time gets the same fate. They die. That's it. The end! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 15:16:39 GMT
The point is... given the option after resurrection pretty much guarantees that Jesus is the Savior, so what fool would opt for hell? Isn't the point to come to Jesus through faith?
Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. It would actually work for the majority that don't believe. The entire reason many don't believe is lack of evidence... that's why they 'believe' the things they do, for the evidence of those things. The standard wouldn't matter... almost no one would opt for hell, therefore there would be no need for it in the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 31, 2017 15:17:52 GMT
The point is... given the option after resurrection pretty much guarantees that Jesus is the Savior, so what fool would opt for hell? Isn't the point to come to Jesus through faith? If your definition of faith is that it can't be based on any facts or evidence at all... Then, sure, that option might seem kinda weird. Of course, that's just your hang-up, and might not have anything to do with how faith might actually work or be required. See? Just because you'd have Jesus staring you in the face after your resurrection, it doesn't really mean that you'd choose to have faith in him and choose to obey what ever he says.. even if you knew for a fact that the whole story was real. Knowing that the options are real doesn't negate the choice from being your choice. ...according to the story. |
|
