did he die for me or not?
-
lets go with your (btw, i am representing jenny who is indisposed) birthday gift analogy. say inside the box are receipts for the payment of all my debt. Bank, Credit Card, HDB, everything. So I rejected the box and say my friend didn't even gave it to me... he is one of those missing in the Nicol Highway blast.Originally posted by sillyme:imagine this. your birthday is coming. a good friend hopes to make your birthday a memorable one. he goes around looking for a perfect gift. he finds it and wraps it up (and shouts, "it is finished!"). he gives it to you, but you reject it.
your rejection means that you don't get to keep the gift or enjoy it. but your rejection doesn't change the fact that the gift is paid, and bought for you.
going to the two masters scenario. the fact is that his freedom was bought and paid for (and shouts, "it is finished!"). but the unwillingness to accept the new master would deny the slave's right to his new inheritance.
I go to the bank and make payment, I go to HDB and make payment, I send a cheque to the credit card company and you know what? my friend was right! IT IS FINISH!
and as for the master and slave scenario, I am free means I am free - freedom is my inheritance! -
All right. You want to use logic?Originally posted by jennyxxxxx001:I am trying to use logic. not scriptural references. unless you tell me that christianity is not logical ...... which then opens up another can of worms...
Let me play with you.
-
I think the reason why you cannot agree is 'cos you commited the fallacy of equivocation. Read Neon's reply - "4. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross, His one perfect sacrifice is completed and fufils righteousness and love in every way."Originally posted by jennyxxxxx001:to say that it is a perfect solution and then to say that I must accept and or reject means that it is not a perfect solution.
I brought up the issue of those who did not even know he died for them. how then are they going to accept and or reject?
what about those who died before he came? so accepting and or rejecting is a red herring. it is redundant.
Oh, you're wrong. Accepting or rejecting is not a red herring. In fact, it forms the antecedent of the all important statement - if you believe in my Son, you shall not die but have eternal life I take the liberty to transform John 3:16 into a logical statement, since you want to use logic here.
Hehe ... before any of you jumps at the chance and ask me what happens if you don't believe in Him ... stop and think further. -
Paul..a severe persecutor of the Church after he was converted said this, "But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ"
Since the scripture itself says so, then maybe next time please rephrase all the wording such as "Jesus has wash the sin of all men" when obviously all it does is wash the sin of believers. It should be rephrase till "Jesus has wash the sins of believers only". Men includes buddhists and muslim etc who will feel insulted since u said it as though they r already believers. And please do not treat his death as a "gift" to men any more. It is a contract if u ask me.
-Philippians 3:7-8
I would like to summarise all that we have discussed so far and this thread shall come to a close. Silly, M and I have explain all we have and presented the Scripture and teachings in its simplicity. Acceptance or rejection of this teaching is not our primarily concern when we answer, just to help clear some doubts.
Here are some mainpoints Christianity teaches:
1. Salvation is provided solely through Jesus Christ and no one else.
2. Salvation comes from the grace of God and accepted by faith. Never to be attained by works.
3. Salvation though offers freely to all is in a way limited. Limited means it is not automatic applicable to all and must be received personally.
4. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross, His one perfect sacrifice is completed and fufils righteousness and love in every way.
5. Rejection of Jesus Christ equals the rejection of His saving work on the cross and thus His Salvation provided.
And this post has successfully brings me to another "can of worms". Wat is the attitude of christians toward believers of other religions ? A monk has devoted his life to his religion. They refrain from eating non vegetarian food and lead a life of poverty. I can say tat they r not less pious compared to people from other religions.
So according to bible, when they die will they still suffer in hell ? If so, WHY ? Is he wrong in selecting buddhist as his religion since this world is so messy with so much unknowns ? Can u blame people of other religion to continue believing in their religion ? Why should god be so cruel and punish them equally just because they do not "pray" to him. Why does believing in him is so important ? Are non believers any lesser mortals with lesser morals ? -
Men includes buddhists and muslim etc who will feel insulted since u said it as though they r already believers.
They will not. If they don't believe in Jesus, the statement "Jesus has washed the sin of all men" makes no sense to them. What's there to be insulted about?
And please do not treat his death as a "gift" to men any more. It is a contract if u ask me.
Your nirvana-heaven analogy makes no sense. When a person is epistemologically commited to one worldview, he won't think like the Buddhist you said. There's no such thing as opportunity cost of nirvana since nirvana is not in the christian worldview. And if you're so undecided that you still think of your loss of nirvana, then you most probably aren't saved.
It is a gift in the sense you do not have to work for it. You just have to accept it. -
They will not. If they don't believe in Jesus, the statement "Jesus has washed the sin of all men" makes no sense to them. What's there to be insulted about?
They do not believe Jesus. However wat do the christian say ? They say ALL MEN will be saved by Jesus death BUT IT ONLY INCLUDES BELIEVERS. It is directly saying ALL MEN r believers. Whether u believe in buddhist or believe in taoist, from looking at the meaning of the sentence, it mean christians ALREADY assume they r believers of Christ which they obviously do not. Tat is the insult ! Tat is the attitude of the people saying it, and tat should be something to be angry about.Your nirvana-heaven analogy makes no sense. When a person is epistemologically commited to one worldview, he won't think like the Buddhist you said. There's no such thing as opportunity cost of nirvana since nirvana is not in the christian worldview. And if you're so undecided that you still think of your loss of nirvana, then you most probably aren't saved.
I am speaking from the viewpoint of a free thinker looking at cases of people with other religion converting to christianity.
How do u know which religion is correct or not ? Maybe buddhist is the one with the right interpretation of the world state and not christians. Wat if somewhere in some scripture, it mentioned "u can only go to nirvana if u r a believer, otherwise u go to purgatory (tis is just an example, there is not such unequal treatment written in buddhism which makes it more noble and sensible)". So now wat ? Believe in buddhist and "may" end up in "Christian hell" or believe in Christian and end up in "buddhist purgatory" ?
If it is free, then it won't force people to make a choice. Whether u r buddhist or taoist, u can still go to heaven. However it is not the case. U r being forced to make a stand which may makes u end up in "purgatory". R u going to tell me they didn't "lose anything" because their religion is fake ? Wat if theirs is the true religion and yours is not ? He had lost an equal chance just because he has "accepted" the gift. Is this gift "free" then ? NO ! They have paid a price which is an equal chance to attain "nirvana" and avoid "purgatory".
Let me give u an example of wat is "free". If u do good deeds, no matter wat religion u r, u get to go to heaven and your sin is "graded" equally compared to people of other religion.
NOT
I only give "special priority" to believers. The others can just rot in hell for all I care. I don't even care if they had lead a pious life serving other religion neither do I care if this christian I am going to receive had committed a lot of sins. The most important criterion in my eyes is whether is he a believer or not. The rest is secondaryIt is a gift in the sense you do not have to work for it. You just have to accept it.
It is like a job. U can only take one job at a time. If u plainly just "accept" tis job, it means u have waste your opportunity to work in other careers. It is not free. Being "free" doesn't force u to select only one option and reject the rest. -
They do not believe Jesus. However wat do the christian say ? They say ALL MEN will be saved by Jesus death BUT IT ONLY INCLUDES BELIEVERS. It is directly saying ALL MEN r believers.
If you want to talk logic with me ...
Your argument can be reduced to the following categorical syllogism:
All men are saved [people].
All believers are saved [people].
Therefore, all men are believers.
I'm sorry, my friend. In case you don't know, the conclusion does not hold from the premise. Go and draw a venn diagram, the standard way of solving categorical syllogism problems. You'll realize the conclusion is not contained in the premise.
Cheers. -
If it is free, then it won't force people to make a choice. Whether u r buddhist or taoist, u can still go to heaven.
In this case, the [free] gift is not even claimed, you agree? Since the buddhist or taoist do not believe in Christ, how can they even claim the gift?
Or don't tell me you have habit of forcing 'gifts' on people?
-
in the first place, it's a gift. if the gift was not received and opened, then the receiver will not know what is inside. receiving the gift is similar to one who hears the 'good news'.Originally posted by chachai001:lets go with your (btw, i am representing jenny who is indisposed) birthday gift analogy. say inside the box are receipts for the payment of all my debt. Bank, Credit Card, HDB, everything. So I rejected the box and say my friend didn't even gave it to me... he is one of those missing in the Nicol Highway blast.
I go to the bank and make payment, I go to HDB and make payment, I send a cheque to the credit card company and you know what? my friend was right! IT IS FINISH!
and as for the master and slave scenario, I am free means I am free - freedom is my inheritance!
and the gift that was given is God's forgiveness. it's not payable by one's ownself but God alone, in this case it was Christ's redemption work on the cross.
so if the gift is not received, then the receiver will not be able to know about the content. however, he still has a choice to keep it or reject it.
a slave has no house of his own. if he chooses to stay and serve his first master (even after being redeemed), he is still under the rule of his first master. he is under the first master's authority, even if the first master only has a fake authority. -
the gift we are talking about here is not something that is to take effect in the future. to be consumed in the future. we are talking about a gift that has already taken place. nobody asked him to die. he died as a sacrifice, as a gift. it is already done. it is a given.Originally posted by sillyme:in the first place, it's a gift. if the gift was not received and opened, then the receiver will not know what is inside. receiving the gift is similar to one who hears the 'good news'.
and the gift that was given is God's forgiveness. it's not payable by one's ownself but God alone, in this case it was Christ's redemption work on the cross.
so if the gift is not received, then the receiver will not be able to know about the content. however, he still has a choice to keep it or reject it.
a slave has no house of his own. if he chooses to stay and serve his first master (even after being redeemed), he is still under the rule of his first master. he is under the first master's authority, even if the first master only has a fake authority.
well i certainly did not ask to be born in this world. so this gift of life I must also accept or reject? or is it a done deal?
so god is a gentleman, he is willing that i go to hell... but he is not a gentleman when it come to my being born?
as for the slave analogy, are you saying that the freedom that was given me is not perfect? that i am not really free?
so make up your mind, was it a gift freely given, a gift that is a perfect solution, a gift that was done and complete in itself. a gift like life, is a gift to all mankind? so did he die for me????? so if you do not believe that he died for me, then don't go around telling me that he did!
you should go around pretending that he did not die and ask people, do you want him to die for you? and pretend that he will come again some time in the future and die again. for his first death was of no effect. -
nobody asked him to die. he died as a sacrifice, as a gift. it is already done. it is a given.
But have you accepted it?
well i certainly did not ask to be born in this world. so this gift of life I must also accept or reject? or is it a done deal?
I dunno what's your point here, but you do not make sense logically. By saying it is a gift of life, you're assuming a recepient. It is like you were originally dead, then some deity gave you a 'gift of life' then you became a living being.
so make up your mind, was it a gift freely given, a gift that is a perfect solution, a gift that was done and complete in itself.
It is a gift freely given. Regarding whether it is a perfect solution, I think you commited the fallacy of equivocation. So let's just say to you, it is not perfect, if you stick to your own view of perfection. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
huh, you earned your life? life was not given freely to you? how much did you pay for it? you are not the recepient (sic)?
[b]nobody asked him to die. he died as a sacrifice, as a gift. it is already done. it is a given.
But have you accepted it?
well i certainly did not ask to be born in this world. so this gift of life I must also accept or reject? or is it a done deal?
I dunno what's your point here, but you do not make sense logically. By saying it is a gift of life, you're assuming a recepient. It is like you were originally dead, then some deity gave you a 'gift of life' then you became a living being.
so make up your mind, was it a gift freely given, a gift that is a perfect solution, a gift that was done and complete in itself.
It is a gift freely given. Regarding whether it is a perfect solution, I think you commited the fallacy of equivocation. So let's just say to you, it is not perfect, if you stick to your own view of perfection.[/b]
in the same way, if you say he died so that all my debts are paid - then they are paid.
it is not like: "OK all those who want their debts to be paid, put your name on the list. I will pay them."
what christians are saying is: "OK, he died, all debts have been settled."
he has already paid for it - perfectly, like you said - now you want me to pay again? if he hasn't died, yet, OK either he dies or I die.
now you are saying that he died, he paid for it fully, but I still have to pay. so there are 2 conclusions we can make here:
1. he died, but that did not settle the debt, or not enough (it is not perfect.) what equivocation? are you using the same meaning of perfect as I am here?
2. sorry he did not die for you. but you keep saying that he died for me!
which brings us back to the original question, did he die for me or not? -
Hey there is there an indon Christian here amongst us, Malay ? Interesting to meet one, had wanted to reach out to maid community before...Originally posted by NeonTetra:Salvation is provided fully by Christ on the cross. It is a free gift and not to be earned. It just like i give u a present wrapped up. If i pass to you and u refuse to accept and open up the gift. U can never receive wat i have bought for u. I have given u the gift, i paid money for it and its for u...but i didnt get it in the end.
-
yes?Originally posted by panzerjager:Hey there is there an indon Christian here amongst us, Malay ? Interesting to meet one, had wanted to reach out to maid community before... -
If you want to talk logic with me ...
SInce u r deriving from my point of view, I can safely say your conclusion is wrong. I will write amy view myself
Your argument can be reduced to the following categorical syllogism:
All men are saved [people].
All believers are saved [people].
Therefore, all men are believers.
I'm sorry, my friend. In case you don't know, the conclusion does not hold from the premise. Go and draw a venn diagram, the standard way of solving categorical syllogism problems. You'll realize the conclusion is not contained in the premise.
Cheers.
1) Only and ONLY believers r saved and not the rest
2) All men r saved
3) Therefore all men must be believers
I'm sorry, my friend. In case you don't know, the conclusion does hold from the premise. Go and draw a venn diagram, the standard way of solving categorical syllogism problems. You'll realize the conclusion is contained in the premise.In this case, the [free] gift is not even claimed, you agree? Since the buddhist or taoist do not believe in Christ, how can they even claim the gift?
For your info, tat is a contract, not a gift. It is not just plainly "accepting". If u accept tis "gift" u have to follow his orders as a believer. Is there anything wrong with the above statement ?
Or don't tell me you have habit of forcing 'gifts' on people
To me tat is a slave contract. U r as though saying "The slave contract is offered to me, it is just tat u refuse to sign it." -
1) Only and ONLY believers r saved and not the rest
This is a problematic premise and I shall not accept it. For one, it is too narrow and it is as if you know what G-d is thinking. It ignores grace as well and one implication of it is that all Jews, sans Messianc Jews, go hell. I do not dare to hold such view.
You find a scriptural verse for me that holds such narrow view? That conclusively shows even the Jews are not saved.
My original argument for you had correct premise, but wrong conclusion, but you rejected it.
For your info, tat is a contract, not a gift. It is not just plainly "accepting". If u accept tis "gift" u have to follow his orders as a believer.
What orders?
May I ask for the robber beside Jesus, after accepting Him as Lord, what orders did he follow? -
duh tis discussion has been getting out of hand. i once had tis roughly the same discussion with my christian fren n i gave up. he keep repeating the same thing until i give up. i ask u guys a simple question.
do u noe wat happen after u die ??? u will go heaven or hell???
Hu can say 100 % tat u will go to heaven / hell after u die? have u went to these 2 places b4?
i myself believe tat no matter wat religion u believe, as long as u do good deeds, u will b rewarded somehow, someday. -
The reason why you cannot agree is both of you have different presupposition and you may not see his point of view.
That is why christians spread the gospel but the Holy Spirit converts. Seldom do you see christians convinced by arguments and became christians. It is something more fundamental than that. -
This is a problematic premise and I shall not accept it. For one, it is too narrow and it is as if you know what G-d is thinking. It ignores grace as well and one implication of it is that all Jews, sans Messianc Jews, go hell. I do not dare to hold such view.
You find a scriptural verse for me that holds such narrow view? That conclusively shows even the Jews are not saved.
My original argument for you had correct premise, but wrong conclusion, but you rejected it.Here are some mainpoints Christianity teaches:
Why don't u have a talk with Neontetra on who is right or wrong in the first place. I get tis idea from his reply.
1. Salvation is provided solely through Jesus Christ and no one else.
2. Salvation comes from the grace of God and accepted by faith. Never to be attained by works.
3. Salvation though offers freely to all is in a way limited. Limited means it is not automatic applicable to all and must be received personally.
4. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross, His one perfect sacrifice is completed and fufils righteousness and love in every way.
5. Rejection of Jesus Christ equals the rejection of His saving work on the cross and thus His Salvation provided.What orders?
Then may I ask wat orders have u receive ?
May I ask for the robber beside Jesus, after accepting Him as Lord, what orders did he follow?
U have to go to church, u have to tilte, u have to pray to god, u CANNOT believe in other religion, u cannot speak foul of God, u have to believe the bible, and so on and so forth. The main order is U CANNOT BELIEVE IN OTHER RELIGION. U have anything to say to tis. Isn't tat an order already ? -
You read point 2 - Salvation comes from the grace of G-d. And yah la .. Jesus Christ is G-d. The emphasis is salvation comes from God and no one else. And common sense will tell you before Jesus became man, there ought to be another criteria for salvation. My point is whatever the criteria, the decision still lies with G-d.
U have to go to church
Nope. The church just facilitates the worship and learning process. If you like, you can gather a few friends to your house and call it a 'church'.
u have to tilte
Nope. If you are not earning money, tithe what? Those kids in africa, assuming you convert them, where they get the money? And they did say in church, if you don't understand the reason for tilting, then you better not tilte. Clearly, this is not a rule.
u have to pray to god, u CANNOT believe in other religion, u cannot speak foul of God,
Never say must pray 5 times a day or other similar rules. Of course cannot believe other religion, or you'll be an irrational person. Like violating the law of non-contradiction.
u have to believe the bible, and so on and so forth.
Not too sure. There're so many liberal christians around. You also cannot say they don't believe and will end up in hell. And believing is partly a matter of interpretation too.
The main order is U CANNOT BELIEVE IN OTHER RELIGION. U have anything to say to tis. Isn't tat an order already ?
Like you were once an orphan. Then your biological father acknowledges you. You believe he's your real father. Of course cannot believe another man as your father mah. Duh. -
double post
-
You read point 2 - Salvation comes from the grace of G-d. And yah la .. Jesus Christ is G-d. The emphasis is salvation comes from God and no one else. And common sense will tell you before Jesus became man, there ought to be another criteria for salvation. My point is whatever the criteria, the decision still lies with G-d.
How about pt 1 ? It says it must come from Jesus and no one else. Can we use common sense for tis ? If we use common sense then we will have already come to the conclusion tat there is no god. So wat is the meaning of your paragraph ? There is a hidden criteria tat no one know ? There is a criteria before Jesus Christ which was overwrite by Jesus or running in concurrent with his "salvation" ?
This is a problematic premise and I shall not accept it. For one, it is too narrow and it is as if you know what G-d is thinking. You find a scriptural verse for me that holds such narrow view?
Now comes to the point. If going by wat u said, either Jesus is a lier or Neontetra is a lier. As point 1 clearly state tat
Salvation is provided solely through Jesus Christ and no one else
So the religion of other people r not through Jesus Christ, thus we came to the original point tat Jesus DID not save all men, he only save believers and church etc is WRONG in saying Jesus saves all men.U have to go to church
I know u will come out with wonderful stories about these few points. Which church or which father don't "recommend" u to follow these acts ? However the ultimate one, which forces the individual to change religion is already an order.
u have to tilte
u have to pray to god, u CANNOT believe in other religion, u cannot speak foul of God,
Like you were once an orphan. Then your biological father acknowledges you. You can believe he's your real father or the one raising u is the real father. If u accept tis new father, who is surprisingly strict, forces u to break all ties with the father tat had been caring for u for many years. Will tis be an offer or an order ? -
So make up your mind. Who is your real father? Which fellow you own half of your chromosomes to?
As the chinese adage goes, one mountain cannot have two tigers, so make up your mind.
Remember your goal and purpose is to find the real father, not anyone who cares for you. So don't give me the crap anyone can be your father. -
About the babies going to heaven question.
Adam and Ever realized they were naked after they had sin. Babies are not accountable coz they do not know sin. And if a baby is not baptized, he or she still goes to heaven. Baptism of a baby is more of a committment of the parents they want their child to grow up as a christian. That is why most people get baptized a second time as adults. Baptism is a symbol of washing, true baptism is from the holy spirit. -
You imply that Christianity is not logical? That it is impossible to be "convinced by arguments?"Originally posted by Icemoon:Seldom do you see christians convinced by arguments and became christians. It is something more fundamental than that.