Relationship vs Religion

[Milktoast Bandit]

The Christian faith was never intended to make a man gloomy or downcast, but to put joy in his heart and a song upon his lips. No one has more right to a cheerful countenance than the sincere Christian, for he can be sure that he knows the way of happiness here and nothing can come to him hereafter save peace and glory in the redeemed life. Copied Bible Hub

So, while many religious systems require that a person do or not do certain things, Christianity is about believing that Christ died on the cross as payment for our own sins and rose again. Our sin debt is paid and we can have fellowship with God. We can have victory over our sin nature and walk in fellowship and obedience with God. That is true biblical Christianity. copied Got Questions


Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works. A theistic religion, such as Judaism or Islam, holds to the belief in a supreme God or gods; while non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, focus on metaphysical thought patterns and spiritual “energies.” But most religions are similar in that they are built upon the concept that man can reach a higher power or state of being through his own efforts. In most religions, man is the aggressor and the deity is the beneficiary of man’s efforts, sacrifices, or good deeds. Paradise, nirvana, or some higher state of being is man’s reward for his strict adherence to whatever tenets that religion prescribes.

In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children. In Christianity, God is the aggressor and man is the beneficiary (Romans 8:3). The Bible states clearly that there is nothing man can do to make himself right with God (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23). According to Christianity, God did for us what we cannot do for ourselves (Colossians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Our sin separates us from His presence, and sin must be punished (Romans 6:23; Matthew 10:28; 23:33). But, because God loves us, He took our punishment upon Himself. All we must do is accept God’s gift of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Grace is God’s blessing on the undeserving. copied from
"Is Christianity a religion or a relationship"

That's all I have to say about that tonight. Good night.

This is 'penal substitution'. An idea that is completely foreign to Christianity since the beginning. It wasn't until the 11th century that this idea began to take shape and the 16th century when it became solidified by the Reformers. I almost ranted... Instead I'll stop here and just say it is my personal opinion that it's a good idea for all of the Christianities to investigate how life was lived and what was understood in the Church during the first 1000 of Christianity.

 

[wiredandwound]

The Christian faith was never intended to make a man gloomy or downcast, but to put joy in his heart and a song upon his lips. No one has more right to a cheerful countenance than the sincere Christian, for he can be sure that he knows the way of happiness here and nothing can come to him hereafter save peace and glory in the redeemed life. Copied Bible Hub

So, while many religious systems require that a person do or not do certain things, Christianity is about believing that Christ died on the cross as payment for our own sins and rose again. Our sin debt is paid and we can have fellowship with God. We can have victory over our sin nature and walk in fellowship and obedience with God. That is true biblical Christianity. copied Got Questions


Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works. A theistic religion, such as Judaism or Islam, holds to the belief in a supreme God or gods; while non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, focus on metaphysical thought patterns and spiritual “energies.” But most religions are similar in that they are built upon the concept that man can reach a higher power or state of being through his own efforts. In most religions, man is the aggressor and the deity is the beneficiary of man’s efforts, sacrifices, or good deeds. Paradise, nirvana, or some higher state of being is man’s reward for his strict adherence to whatever tenets that religion prescribes.

In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children. In Christianity, God is the aggressor and man is the beneficiary (Romans 8:3). The Bible states clearly that there is nothing man can do to make himself right with God (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23). According to Christianity, God did for us what we cannot do for ourselves (Colossians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Our sin separates us from His presence, and sin must be punished (Romans 6:23; Matthew 10:28; 23:33). But, because God loves us, He took our punishment upon Himself. All we must do is accept God’s gift of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Grace is God’s blessing on the undeserving. copied from
"Is Christianity a religion or a relationship"

That's all I have to say about that tonight. Good night.

Now it is me who couldn't of set it better myself. I don't know if people understand that, perhaps you as well, do not believe in Jesus because we read the Bible, but read the Bible because we believe in Jesus.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

What I find interesting is that with all the changes to Christianity over 2000 years, everyone is saying that God/Christ didn't get it right the first time. That we humans can do it better so we add to or take away from what was originally laid out by for us by Christ and his Apostles. Some Protestant denominations believe in the Great Apostasy where they think the original church was lost or stopped then was found again when that particular denomination started. The problem with that is Christ's on words...

"upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

If the original church ceased to exist for any amount of time then Christ, whom is God, is a liar.

Back to penal substitution: in penal substitution, Christ died in place of mankind. Christ pays the debt of our sin. Christ is punished instead of us. Christ is killed to satisfy God's wrath and desire for 'justice'. The issue is, once Christ dies on the cross, the work is done. It is finished and there is no need for him to be resurrected. But he was resurrected. Why? To defeat death. That was the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. (At least according to christianity that's older than 1500 years.)

There are other issues with penal substitution as well...

Death is viewed as a punishment for sin, but it isn't. It is a consequence of sin. God told Adam in Genesis 2 "the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die" He didn't say "I will murder you." To sin, to turn away from God is death. The result of our actions is to die. Free will is a bitch.

Also...

(Jer 31:30)

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

(Deut 24:16)
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(Ezek 18-20)
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Penal substitution is contradicted in the 'infallible' and 'inerrant' Bible. Christ died for us when it clearly states we shall die for ourselves.

Also...

Penal substitution changes the unchanging God. God who is love (Jn 4:8) gets angry, loses his shit, and throws his wrath at Christ. Then he's love again.

Also, in penal substitution, God does not forgive. The 'debt' is not forgiven, it is transferred to Christ.

Well poopy, I have to go to work now so I'm gonna stop ranting. Just for the record, before anyone gets butthurt, I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs about this topic. Just conversing. Sharing ideas. Toodles.

 

[wiredandwound]

(Jer 31:30)

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

This is out of context. Jeremiah is speaking during the days of the Babylonian Captivity, where their Temple and especially their ability to get their yearly salvation from sin was destroyed. The Jews have a yearly holidays of rosh hashanah and yom kippur, these are required yearly for atonement.

(Deut 24:16)
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Also taken out of context. Deuteronomy is a recap of the book of Leviticus. The Levitical laws are the secular laws of the jews, which are in accordance with what their religious values are. These are not God's laws.

(Ezek 18-20)
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Also taken out of context. Ezekiel is speaking that sin is our inherent separation of God. He is relating that If you live by laws of men, even the laws in which you live by are sin if broken.

I have been reading the Bible for years and have not found one single contradiction. I've researched peoples claims of contradiction, and always found them wanting in context.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

This is out of context

Also taken out of context

Also taken out of context

You are reducing Scripture to a history book. If we continue with this, we can easily say it is all out of context because Paul was speaking to those in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, the Old Testament is the Torah meant for Jews, etc.

When looking at Church history we find that Christianity is not based on the Bible. The Apostles founded their respective communities and taught the faith as Christ taught them. Those teachings, traditions, liturgical cycle and worship of the Church was how the first Christians lived for a few hundred years after Pentecost. It wasn't until I think the 3rd or 4th century that something resembling the current Bible was put together from the common letters in use by all or most of the Christian communities. This 'New Testament' combined with the Greek Septuagint (old testament) made the Bible. In those days it was taught that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament and in order to properly read and understand the old testament it was to be read through the lens of the new testament. Otherwise, we end up with 2 different Gods and at least two different messages. The new testament was intentionally assembled in such a way that a new convert could read through it starting with Matthew (who's message was discipleship, beginning the journey of following Christ) and complete the Christian journey with the mystical union with Christ in John's gospel. (Revelation was added centuries later)

I agree with you that people (myself included) love to cherry pick Bible verses to support whatever argument they are trying to make. But if we want to put the Bible back in context then it needs to be put in the context of the early Christians that learned the faith directly from the Apostles and preserved it for us in this day and the early Church that translated and taught the intended meaning of each historical, psychological, spiritual, and allegorical passage in the book. That's just my opinion.

My point being, penal substitution is a relatively 'new' development to Christianity.

 

[wiredandwound]

When looking at Church history we find that Christianity is not based on the Bible. The Apostles founded their respective communities and taught the faith as Christ taught them. Those teachings, traditions, liturgical cycle and worship of the Church was how the first Christians lived for a few hundred years after Pentecost.

I don't know where you are getting this information, but it is incorrect. Jesus' audience was the Jews. Everything He said was from the Torah 5 Books of Moses. Jesus was telling the Jews about His Father in Heaven based on what was already written. Everything that Jesus spoke of to the Apostles was from the books of the prophets. The Gospels are just a record of His time on earth.

Your point is way off the mark, because His message was Grace. The free gift of redemption to the undeserving sinners of the world. This is all Christianity is.

Did you know that ever since the days of the Babylonian Captivity until even now, it has been impossible for the Jews to perform their own religion and rituals. The Temple and holy of holies has been destroyed. The Ark of the covenant has been missing, and the children of Aaron, are no longer. Their religious leaders were lying to them, even in Jesus' day. He exposed them, and they killed Him. But His death was for a purpose set forth by God, and foretold by the prophets.

The free gift of Grace that Paul was sent to teach the gentiles was exactly what was foretold in the books of the prophets; that God would find others from other places to bring into His flock, because of the iniquity and rejection of the Jews. It's all right there in black and white.

I've heard all of this before. And yet, here I am still believing. If you want to compete with me, than you better bone up on your reading.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Jesus' audience was the Jews

I don't dispute this.

Everything He said was from the Torah 5 Books of Moses

Nor do I dispute this.

It's all right there in black and white

Scripture is hardly 'black and white'. It has many layers.

And yet, here I am still believing

I'm not trying to convince you to not believe.

If you want to compete with me,

Not necessarily but if you want to I guess I can. Unfortunately, I have life to do so I can't compete at this very moment. I shall return.

you better bone up on your reading

I try to bone up every day...

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

, so that we cannot boast ourselves above others, which leads us to Mercy and forgiveness, and ultimately Love

If you want to compete with me, than you better bone up on your reading.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

When looking at Church history we find that Christianity is not based on the Bible. The Apostles founded their respective communities and taught the faith as Christ taught them. Those teachings, traditions, liturgical cycle and worship of the Church was how the first Christians lived for a few hundred years after Pentecost. It wasn't until I think the 3rd or 4th century that something resembling the current Bible was put together from the common letters in use by all or most of the Christian communities. This 'New Testament' combined with the Greek Septuagint (old testament) made the Bible. In those days it was taught that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament and in order to properly read and understand the old testament it was to be read through the lens of the new testament.

Yeah, it's called the Vulgate; put together by St Jerome.

I don't see what wired can object to here, to be honest.

 

[mintoots]

relationship

Christianity as a relationship. I have to repeat this to ponder further because it has an interesting metaphysical ring to it. Is it really true that Christianity is the only religion that highlights relationships? Isn't Buddhism alone, to mention among many, considerate of relations as well? To me it still is apparent that relations can be found in other forms of theism. Further, the message of Christianity as a relationship is still relatively obscured because some theists have a way of brandishing it as though a memorandum.

What I find interesting is that with all the changes to Christianity over 2000 years, everyone is saying that God/Christ didn't get it right the first time. That we humans can do it better so we add to or take away from what was originally laid out by for us by Christ and his Apostles. Some Protestant denominations believe in the Great Apostasy where they think the original church was lost or stopped then was found again when that particular denomination started. The problem with that is Christ's on words...

"upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

If the original church ceased to exist for any amount of time then Christ, whom is God, is a liar.

Back to penal substitution: in penal substitution, Christ died in place of mankind. Christ pays the debt of our sin. Christ is punished instead of us. Christ is killed to satisfy God's wrath and desire for 'justice'. The issue is, once Christ dies on the cross, the work is done. It is finished and there is no need for him to be resurrected. But he was resurrected. Why? To defeat death. That was the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. (At least according to christianity that's older than 1500 years.)

There are other issues with penal substitution as well...

Death is viewed as a punishment for sin, but it isn't. It is a consequence of sin. God told Adam in Genesis 2 "the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die" He didn't say "I will murder you." To sin, to turn away from God is death. The result of our actions is to die. Free will is a bitch.

Also...

(Jer 31:30)

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

(Deut 24:16)
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(Ezek 18-20)
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Penal substitution is contradicted in the 'infallible' and 'inerrant' Bible. Christ died for us when it clearly states we shall die for ourselves.

Also...

Penal substitution changes the unchanging God. God who is love (Jn 4:8) gets angry, loses his shit, and throws his wrath at Christ. Then he's love again.

Also, in penal substitution, God does not forgive. The 'debt' is not forgiven, it is transferred to Christ.

Well poopy, I have to go to work now so I'm gonna stop ranting. Just for the record, before anyone gets butthurt, I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs about this topic. Just conversing. Sharing ideas. Toodles.

The bold parts. There it is again. Evolution. This penal substitution is evolution. It is motion. What if the resurrection of Christ is a metaphysical symbolism of all that is cyclic in life, paradoxes included?

Death by the apple and suffering when gaining knowledge is very true. Look at the predicament I have found myself in. I asked and so I am tormented. Yet, there is a pathway back and like Coelho's the alchemist, we may wind back from where we started after seeking all the questions but our viewpoints will never be the same because of the journey we have taken. Evolution again. Transformation again. What if Christ's life, death, and resurrection is symbolic of that?

taken out of context

Who bears the knowingly correct context? None of us do. It is dangerous to presume that we are correct because in this we invalidate all possibilities. Thus we only follow blindly without truly understanding God. Is this still love of God or simply surrender and vulnerability to abuse?

back in context then it needs to be put in the context

Again, how do we know the right context? It's a loop. It's a trap!

Scripture is hardly 'black and white'. It has many layers.

I'm not trying to convince you to not believe.

Amen.

 

[wiredandwound]

Who bears the knowingly correct context? None of us do. It is dangerous to presume that we are correct because in this we invalidate all possibilities. Thus we only follow blindly without truly understanding God. Is this still love of God or simply surrender and vulnerability to abuse?

The context is in black and white. I'm not saying I understand the will of God. What the prophets were saying, that he was referring to, is based on who, what, where, when, and why they were saying them. The context is well correlated within the books of each prophet. They are written quite concisely.
All context requires is understanding who the intended audience was, learning about the related customs of the time, and most importantly, reading the whole thing, in context with the rest of the book at least. Reading the entire Bible, or any book, allows the reader access to greater amounts of context.

 

[dragulagu]

The context is in black and white. I'm not saying I understand the will of God. What the prophets were saying, that he was referring to, is based on who, what, where, when, and why they were saying them. The context is well correlated within the books of each prophet. They are written quite concisely.
All context requires is understanding who the intended audience was, learning about the related customs of the time, and most importantly, reading the whole thing, in context with the rest of the book at least. Reading the entire Bible, or any book, allows the reader access to greater amounts of context.

Yeah......in regards to the Bible, the intended audience was the people of 2000 years ago (or whomever the bible was rewritten to in the years after).
Having said that, we currently require a proper manual on proper moral attitude in our current modern society. As we are lacking this and our current "leaders" aren't exactly properly expressing this attitude as well.

 

[wiredandwound]

Yeah......in regards to the Bible, the intended audience was the people of 2000 years ago (or whomever the bible was rewritten to in the years after).
Having said that, we currently require a proper manual on proper moral attitude in our current modern society. As we are lacking this and our current "leaders" aren't exactly properly expressing this attitude as well.

Who's going to write that manual?

 

[dragulagu]

Who's going to write that manual?

Guess

 

[just me]

Christianity as a relationship. I have to repeat this to ponder further because it has an interesting metaphysical ring to it. Is it really true that Christianity is the only religion that highlights relationships? Isn't Buddhism alone, to mention among many, considerate of relations as well? To me it still is apparent that relations can be found in other forms of theism. Further, the message of Christianity as a relationship is still relatively obscured because some theists have a way of brandishing it as though a memorandum.

The bold parts. There it is again. Evolution. This penal substitution is evolution. It is motion. What if the resurrection of Christ is a metaphysical symbolism of all that is cyclic in life, paradoxes included?

Death by the apple and suffering when gaining knowledge is very true. Look at the predicament I have found myself in. I asked and so I am tormented. Yet, there is a pathway back and like Coelho's the alchemist, we may wind back from where we started after seeking all the questions but our viewpoints will never be the same because of the journey we have taken. Evolution again. Transformation again. What if Christ's life, death, and resurrection is symbolic of that?

It is not. Stop worrying. I know nothing about Buddhism. There is evolution over time when species adapt to certain things they must aDAPT TO. i CALL IT ADAPTATION. eVOLUTION, JUST THE WORD, CAUSED ME NOT TO STUDY SCIENCE. tHE PICTURE OF MANKIND WALKING from ape INTO WHAT WE ARE NOW IS PREPOSTEROUS AND ALMOST FUNNY. wHY HAVEN'T APES EVOLVED INTO MEN? Forgive my caps lock, as I am tired. If a frog had wings, he'd bump his ass when he jumped. What if.

There was no death by apple. If you partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thine eyes will be opened. Tell me: why did a serpent beguile Eve? Why did they hide their private parts in shame when they heard God coming. Why did they feel naked all of a sudden? They lost their innocence. The woman was punished in childbirth. Think about it. Apples to apples. Later God blessed man and said, "Be fruitful, and multiply." My take is God had a different plan and the two could not keep themselves apart long enough to know God's will.

Jesus was the only man born without sin. How is that possible? He was born from a virgin, holy womb. I wrote a thesis on the Bible pertaining to these things years ago using ONLY Bible text. I was told it was right, then they burned it. That was so long ago, I did not make a copy for I felt it would surely be given back to me. I was moved when it was written, and it would be almost impossible to try and write again. Nobody would want to read it, anyway. The Preacher moved and took a job at a college raising funds for the college. Hear this: God speaks to some of us. Some of us are to speak to others the words we hear. God is as real as it gets. We must make ourselves available to God and let Him lead us where He wants. People don't have to accept what is said. That is up to them. Be ready, because they sometimes kill the messenger in their pride and greed.

As I said, it would be better for a millstone to be tied around their necks and they were cast into the seas. If we share what we see, we are laughed at. "Tell us all what you had to eat tonight so we may all partake in it." Next.

 

[mintoots]

It is not. Stop worrying. I know nothing about Buddhism. There is evolution over time when species adapt to certain things they must aDAPT TO. i CALL IT ADAPTATION. eVOLUTION, JUST THE WORD, CAUSED ME NOT TO STUDY SCIENCE. tHE PICTURE OF MANKIND WALKING from ape INTO WHAT WE ARE NOW IS PREPOSTEROUS AND ALMOST FUNNY. wHY HAVEN'T APES EVOLVED INTO MEN? Forgive my caps lock, as I am tired. If a frog had wings, he'd bump his ass when he jumped. What if.

There was no death by apple. If you partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thine eyes will be opened. Tell me: why did a serpent beguile Eve? Why did they hide their private parts in shame when they heard God coming. Why did they feel naked all of a sudden? They lost their innocence. The woman was punished in childbirth. Think about it. Apples to apples. Later God blessed man and said, "Be fruitful, and multiply." My take is God had a different plan and the two could not keep themselves apart long enough to know God's will.

Jesus was the only man born without sin. How is that possible? He was born from a virgin, holy womb. I wrote a thesis on the Bible pertaining to these things years ago using ONLY Bible text. I was told it was right, then they burned it. That was so long ago, I did not make a copy for I felt it would surely be given back to me. I was moved when it was written, and it would be almost impossible to try and write again. Nobody would want to read it, anyway. The Preacher moved and took a job at a college raising funds for the college. Hear this: God speaks to some of us. Some of us are to speak to others the words we hear. God is as real as it gets. We must make ourselves available to God and let Him lead us where He wants. People don't have to accept what is said. That is up to them. Be ready, because they sometimes kill the messenger in their pride and greed.

As I said, it would be better for a millstone to be tied around their necks and they were cast into the seas. If we share what we see, we are laughed at. "Tell us all what you had to eat tonight so we may all partake in it." Next.

Sigh. But evolution is true. And we are still evolving.

 

[wiredandwound]

All the arguments I see trying to dismiss what we believe are childish. It's like a bunch of kids trying to tell their parents about life.
Here's an earth shattering concept. If Jesus hasn't chosen you, then you will not know what we are talking about.
Yes, that's right boys and girls. We didn't accept Christ because someone told us about Him. He made Himself evident to us. This is even how the Bible describes it.
And here's another thing. It is impossible for us to explain how He made such an impact on our lives.
The great Johnny Cash has a great Gospel song that says, "Well I was there when it happened, and so I guess I ought to know". And this is exactly right.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Who's going to write that manual?

Guess

Oookay, guys, you've twisted my arm. Shucks, I'll do it.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Yeah, it's called the Vulgate; put together by St Jerome.

I don't see what wired can object to here, to be honest.

That's it! Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Oookay, guys, you've twisted my arm. Shucks, I'll do it.

Dooo eeeeet!