Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]butler244 wrote:
2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.
[/quote]

False dichotomy. The bible clearly says, “work out your own salvation,” (Phil 2:12) this is not because we can earn salvation, nor does it mean that saving grace is not a free gift, but that man is judged by his works (1 Cor 3:13-17), tested by fire. What this does mean is that we can merit salvation, distinct from earning salvation.

102

[quote]Jakk1234 wrote:
People like to stretch the truth, the bible was not ( at least i believe ) written as a means of control, but as a means of interpretation. Christ, a healer worked wonders. Many have vouched to witness his “miracles” however we have no proof physical proof like we do with gravity, i.e ( I drop a pencil and it falls.) With science today we know a lot more, yet we still interpret. We may be wrong or we may be right; the question is who is to deem it correct? Are the Muslims correct? Maybe, maybe the Jews are or the Buddhists or maybe atheism is right and we are a scientific miracle to be existing. Todays religion is however ( I believe ) interpreted as a means of control in political interest and propaganda seriously hindering the capacity of man kind. We have limits on stem cell researched and wars over a man in a goddam robe. It needs to stop but it comes back to what I mentioned earlier right or wrong is relative. So to answer your question, my religion ( the flying spaggethi monster ) is correct and yours is wrong because your god isn’t the god of pasta; deeming you to serve a eternity in marinara sauce because you dont have faith in angle hair pasta. Duh. [/quote]

So, why is your religion better?

103

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Paul further states that bad company corrupts good morals; he NEVER argues for the opposite. [/quote]

Do you know who Norma McCorvey is? If you don’t I’ll save you the googling, she is the infamous “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame…
Well, she’s no longer an abortion advocate but staunchly anti-abortion and now a Christian (Catholic actually, she converted to Catholicism).
What called her to repentance, well you can blame cigarettes for her conversion. She worked in an abortion clinic and right next door to the abortion clinic was an ‘Operation Rescue’ office. She and one of the workers used to go out and smoke on breaks. This guy from Operation Rescue, befriended Norma and they would always smoke together. Well over time their friendship grew and they did talk shop from time to time. But this guy never passed judgement on her, never her treated her like a ‘sinner’ or outcast her or stay away from her because of her bad morals. He treated her with love and did not judge her. Well this has a very profound effect on her.
It was because of the love and friendship of this Operation Rescue worker that she felt compelled to explore God and faith further which led to her repentance and baptism.

Now she is one of the most ardent and active abortion opponents even to the point where she has and continues to try to have the Supreme Court rehear her case.
I know this not only because of what I read and heard, but because I heard it from her own mouth. She did a talk at my church about 12 years ago. After words she was in need of a smoke as was I since I smoked at the time. So I got to speak to her alone about all this. I got it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. She also read to me a poem she wrote and keeps with her, to the babies she feels responsible for losing their lives.

It’s a compelling story on how the power of a love and friendship changing lives and calling ‘Jane Roe’ to repentance.

This is not the same as ‘lying down with dogs’. This is the power of how treating some love and respect helped lead them to Christ.

I don’t think you can underestimate the profoundness of not only the change of heart of ‘Jane Roe’, but her calling to repentance. Why? Because somebody dared to love.

104

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Butler, who has argued for a religion other than Christianity? I believe that among the Christians on the board, there have been theological discussions arguing for the merits of Catholicism or Protestantism, respectively. While I understand what you are asking, the word religion may be a misnomer to some readers, perhaps personal philosophy concerning the existence and nature of a deity is better? Great thread idea regardless.

[/quote]

Jewbacca is obviously not a Christian. So I would definitely like to hear his take. [/quote]

To answer the question asked: “why is [my] religion better?”

Well, Judaism is “better” because Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people.

Now, of course, that answer begs the quetion: “how do I know that Judaism is true and ordained from G-d for the Jewish people?” Well, that’s a horse of a different color, and you didn’t ask that.

I would also note that Judaism is for Jewish people. It’s not for non-Jewish people.

The rest of you are subject to the Laws of Noah (as I am I, but the law of Noah is part of the overall Law).

Christianity, by most accounts, certainly comports with the laws of Noah, so it’s mostly fine for non-Jewish people, although the Chabad folks would argue that a Noahdic religion, untinged by Jewish heresey, would be better. Solid Judeo-ethics for the masses.

In short, have a merry Christmas.[/quote]

What if I wanted to convert?[/quote]

Why would you want to? There is no theological reason for non-Jews to become Jewish.

Plus, it’s a hard road and the entire world has a fasination with killing you, which, I can advise sucks.

You can love and serve HaShem as you were created.

If you truely desire to convert, despite that, well, sure, I’ll go get my flint knife and warm up the mikvah.[/quote]

Well, I can tell you the world hating your guts would be motivating factor for me, if nothing else, as a “fuck you” to the world. Therefore, with my great respect of Judaism and Jewish tradition, and the fact that there is no Christ without you, I would like an honorary Jewish membership at least.
No I won’t convert, but the factors you mentioned aren’t why, it’s mainly that I believe in the Divinity of the Christ and therefore could not honestly be a Jew. But I proudly stand by you and defend you at least with my words.[/quote]

Catholics are Spiritual Semites, Pat. You are an “honorary” Jew.

105

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]butler244 wrote:
2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.
[/quote]

False dichotomy. The bible clearly says, “work out your own salvation,” (Phil 2:12) this is not because we can earn salvation, nor does it mean that saving grace is not a free gift, but that man is judged by his works (1 Cor 3:13-17), tested by fire. What this does mean is that we can merit salvation, distinct from earning salvation.[/quote]

X2… Well said BC.

106

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Catholics are Spiritual Semites, Pat. You are an “honorary” Jew.
[/quote]

Only honorary… I haven’t been circumcised and I am not going to start now… :slight_smile:

TMI?

107

Pat, I surely hope you aren’t serious bout my argument being that “Paul saved souls”. Seriously?

[quote]“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
/quote]

This only confirms what I am saying. People already know God exists, but they suppress the truth. No amount of deductive reasoning or well outlines arguments are going to bring anyone closer to heaven, because we are blinded by truth suppressing sin. The word is the only effective way of presenting the true God (Romans 10:17 Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the word of God)

1 cor 1:21 “It pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe”

Keep it simple, that leaves no room for Paul or anyone else to take credit for “saving souls”

108

I knew he’d get it.

109

Trib…no e-mail from you?

110

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]butler244 wrote:
2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.
[/quote]

False dichotomy. The bible clearly says, “work out your own salvation,” (Phil 2:12) this is not because we can earn salvation, nor does it mean that saving grace is not a free gift, but that man is judged by his works (1 Cor 3:13-17), tested by fire. What this does mean is that we can merit salvation, distinct from earning salvation.[/quote]

The doctrines of justification and sanctification are both necessary components of the Christian faith. There is no such thing as a justified but unsanctified sinner and no such thing as a sanctified but unjustified sinner. Both are essential. There is, however, a tendency in the church to confuse the doctrines, to combine the doctrines, and to fail to recognize the distinction between the two. Justification is concerned with Christâ??s work for the sinner as the ground of acceptance with our holy God. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit in the justified sinner whereby he is conformed more and more into the image of the Lord Jesus.

The dogma of Rome is an excellent illustration of a failure to recognize the distinction between the two doctrines. Rome has reduced the distinction between these two truths and therefore teaches that justification before God includes our works of obedience. Protestants run the risk of such confusion also. There is an emphasis today on â??living the gospel.â?? While I think I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, there is a tendency to move toward Rome in such thinking. The gospel, strictly defined (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is the historic, revealed message concerning Jesus Christ. It is that record of events which focus upon Christâ??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners. Technically, one cannot live the good news of Christâ??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners â?? it is a message, it is a declaration, it is good news. One can live in light of it, one can let his conduct be worthy of it, one can pursue holiness; but to live out the events of Christâ??s redemptive work on behalf of sinners, is simply not our calling.

When we preach the gospel, we are preaching a historic, revealed and Christ-centered message concerning His doing, dying, and rising again for sinners. We are preaching the finished work of Christ as the only foundation for acceptance with God. We are preaching pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness grounded solely in the active and passive obedience of Christ. We are preaching the glory of God in the reconciling of sinners to Himself by Jesus Christ. Period. Full stop. No additions, no subtractions, no supplements. When we preach the effects of the gospel, or the transforming power of the gospel, we instruct the people of God regarding the ethical implications of having believed the truth. If we do not keep these categories distinct, we run the risk of Romanism, Galatianism, or any other â??ismâ?? that includes manâ??s performance in his acceptance with God.

The Bible recognizes the inclination of sinful man to try to take credit for his acceptance with God. This is precise

111

I’m not taking credit for that. It is a blog post from my church that addresses how we don’t see it as a false dichotomy.

112

[quote]butler244 wrote:
Trib…no e-mail from you?[/quote] I don’t know what you mean. I haven’t received anything from you. If you mail me I’ll give you my real address. That of course as usual goes for anybody else as well. We used to have private messages here where we could speak off the boards. If we still did, I would have pm’d you a long time ago.

113

I tried PM and it did not work…just saw on the previous page that you said “check your mail”

114

[quote]butler244 wrote:
I tried PM and it did not work…just saw on the previous page that you said “check your mail”[/quote]

He was actually talking to me, Butler.

115

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]butler244 wrote:
I tried PM and it did not work…just saw on the previous page that you said “check your mail”[/quote]

He was actually talking to me, Butler. [/quote]Yeah, that’s Right Butler. KK and I have had each other’s addresses since before they disabled PM’s. Please do mail me though.

116

Ahh…that makes sense…Ma bad

117

[quote]butler244 wrote:
Ahh…that makes sense…Ma bad[/quote] Sometimes they publish it and sometimes they don’t. We’ll see this time. The email address I use publicly here is tiribulus@gmail.com . Hopefully the mods will hear me that I REALLY want this one to go live and DO NOT care who has it. Mail me there and I’ll give you my main address.

118

[quote]butler244 wrote:
I’m not taking credit for that. It is a blog post from my church that addresses how we don’t see it as a false dichotomy.[/quote]You are a Reformed Baptist. Like my man Voddie Bachum. And Dr. James White. You n I really ARE gonna get along. I may be the one who seems very slightly liberal to you, That would flip these guys out for sure.

119

[quote]H factor wrote:<<< Questions will be coming, but probably going to have to wait till the weekend where I can really sit down and read more than I have. It’s always interesting. [/quote]Just be aware that my old friend Pat hasn’t the first flickering clue what he’s talkin about when it comes to the bible and ESPECIALLY in his assessments of protestantism. A cereal box will get you better information.

120

[quote]butler244 wrote:
The gospel, strictly defined (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is the historic, revealed message concerning Jesus Christ.[/quote]
I have an issue that I’d like to address here, if you would hear it.

Just after this statement from Paul (that he proclaimed the gospel), he proceeds to give an account of Christ visiting His disciples after His resurrection(1 Cor 15:5-8), and gets that account wrong (that is, his account does not agree with the account in the four actual Gospels). Then in Galatians 1:8, he says that if anybody (“even we, or an angel from Heaven”) contradicts him, to put a curse upon them.

So is he instructing his churches to reject the Gospels and curse the Apostles? They disagree with the gospel that he preaches.

I could not agree more.