Core of Christianity

As far as I can see, the core of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins. This concept doesn't sit well for me due to a number of reasons, without which, I'd probably be a 'christian' (at least in the christian sense of the word):


* Man is inherently sinful:
This concept doesn't leave the slightest bit of leeway, thus trapping all of humanity with the need for salvation. It shows that EVEN if a person lived a sinless life, they'd STILL be bound for hell if they didn't accept that Jesus died for their (non-existent) sins. Does this mean that if a newborn babe dies, it will go to hell? Most Christians would say no. What about a child who has the full capability of understanding sin and Jesus's sacrifice, and has been explained it all? Most Christians would again say no, because they aren't 'adults' yet (in the Biblical sense of the word- age 12, I believe). What about a person who just became an adult? If they died without accepting, would they go to hell?

The problems here as I see it is the blurriness of the line, as well as the actual original sin idea. An example was given in this forum a while ago, talking about Enoch, I believe. Since he 'walked with God', this would mean that either the supposed intolerance of God for sin is false, or that the supposed original sin is false.

My take on it: All people are born inherently pure and innocent, and society, corrupts them. Some of them are able to withstand the corruption, some accept it. God certainly helps here.


* Sins can somehow be transferred:
This somewhat ties into the first point. If sins cannot be inherited, I definitely don't think they can be transferred.

The bible agrees that it cannot be inherited (sins of the father, sins of the son, y'know), and then in another place, the sin is passed down 10 generations. This is obviously confusing. Some Christians differentiate between the sin itself (which is not inherited) and the curse of the sin, which can be inherited. I'd like to see some biblical backing for anyone who espouses this view. This would mean the concept of the original sin is actually the concept of the curse of the original sin, and that Jesus died to take away the curse of the original sin. This would have the implication that we still have to be careful with sinning (works come into it a bit), and that only the curse of the original sin is removed.

My take on it: Each person is responsible for their own sins, it is their own burden, and will have to answer for those only.

* Blood is required in exchange for wiping away sins:
Please do not take offense, but I have to say that I find this concept excessively barbaric. I try examining the reasoning behind this: God obviously does not NEED blood, otherwise God wouldn't be God. This means that this restriction is something on our side. Why would we need to give blood in exchange for wiping away our sins? What purpose does it serve? I cannot think of an answer to this. This would mean God brought his own son (who is also God, but lets leave this alone for the time being) down to earth, and had him live a sinless life, despite all the temptations, and then had him(self?) killed as a sacrifice to himself. Wouldn't it have been simpler, and less confusing just to wash away all previous sins?

My take on it: The original 'sacrifices' were just a method of remembrance of God- God didn't need them, we needed to give them so that God would be in our minds, and we could show ourselves that we are ready and willing to give/sacrifice in the way of God. Freeing oneself of sin would be as simple as repenting and asking God's forgiveness.


* We must believe Jesus died for our sins:
This is of course, the tie-in for all the previous points. One of the problems here is the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus is God, then the sacrifice was meaningless, because of course God can resist temptation and remain sinless. If Jesus was human, he'd be part of the 'original sin', and his sacrifice wouldn't be worthy. Another problem is that Jesus rose again after 3 days. This means that there was no sacrifice at all, because Jesus came back. Some Christians say that the sacrifice was all the pain that Jesus suffered, and not necessarily the death. But lots of other people have suffered similar (and worse) pain, some of them young children who were definitely sinless.

Jesus himself gave the criteria to be saved: Believe/Love in God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. It is somewhat interesting to note that according to current mainstream beliefs, you technically don't even need to believe in God, just believe that Jesus died for your sins.

My take on it: It didn't happen, because it wasn't required.


An example to illustrate this all:
This family of a husband, wife and son get shipwrecked on an island. Nobody comes to rescue them, so they settle down, and start living and surviving on the island. The mother gives the son basic education- including teaching him to read. Unfortunately, at a still relatively young age, the parents die. Amazingly, the boy survives, and fends for himself. One the rare occasions when he has some free time, he read through the small stash of books that remained. After reading the bible, he decided that he believed in God, and was going to dedicate the remainder of his life towards God. However, he wasn't quite at ease with the idea that Jesus died for his sins, and thus he didn't believe that. He lived the rest of his live even more piously than before, and died at the ripe old age of....37.

Considering that there were no other people on the island, he didn't have the opportunity to sin. He guarded against those small sins that you could commit against yourself. Would he go to hell because he didn't accept that Jesus died for his sins, or would he go to heaven because he believed/loved God with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his mind and all his strength (the latter part of the commandment being invalid for him)?

Great post! I'll try to fill in my understanding of what you've presented and am more than happy to clarify anything I can. I, too, struggled with many of the things you put forward here.

* Man is inherently sinful:

In order to understand this, it requires a definition of what sin is. Often I found myself defining sin as what is right and wrong morally, but then the questions arise, by whose morals is this standard of right and wrong held. A better Christian definition of Sin, I believe, is operating contrary to God's will.

Paul wrote in Romans 7, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." I know I've found myself in that place on several occasions, and I expect many others have, too. Knowing the good that we should do, but we do not do it. James wrote in his letter, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17)

The contention of scripture isn't necessarily that we're all born psychotic, but rather that we're born rebellious. That we turn from God when He stated that the most important command He'd given was to love the Lord with all of your heart, soul and strength. Christ came to redeem us of this rebellion, that when we accept Him, He comes into our lives and enables us to live completely for God. He builds a bridge in our lives over that rebellious nature, thereby reconciling us to God.

* Sins can somehow be transferred:

Sort of. You were right in noting that fathers will not be held accountable for the sins of their sons, and vice versa. Each person is responsible for their own since.

However, there is the issue of punishment being met out to multiple generations. This isn't saying that the later generations are guilty of the same sin, but that the ramifications travel through the family. We can see this in many real world examples.

One of the most frightening revolves around suicide, and the statistics are frightening. When someone in a family kills themselves, something happens in that family where every member is suddenly far more likely to do the same. By one family member deciding to take that drastic course of action, it becomes a semi-legitimate response in future generations. Are the children of the individual guilty of killing themselves? No, but they now struggle with the temptation where other children in a different environment do not, at least to the same degree.

Another example would be in the case of an inheritance. If your father has a ton of money and squanders it all on hookers and gambling, you don't inherit it. It's not that you're guilty of squandering the money, but the results of your father squandering it fall to you and your children, etc. no matter how responsible you would be with it.

* Blood is required in exchange for wiping away sins:

There are a couple of concepts that need to be addressed here. First, that God is just. He is merciful, but He is also just. Books have been written on this very subject (as well as all of the others), but I will try to sum it up with a relatively simple example. However, I do realize that this does very little justice to explaining God's justice.

Let's say we have two people, one who spent their lives trying to help others and followed God's commands for their life as defined above. Then we have another who was a child rapist genocidal maniac hating all up to his very last breath, and they both die. What kind of good God would say they both deserve the same fate? If our justice system were to decide they both get to go free, there would be riots!

Another element is what God said in the beginning, in that the wages of sin is death. He set up a system of sacrifices for Israel that would be symbolic of this price. The lamb you must sacrifice as a sin offering was to take the place of you, to pay the price that you yourself must pay by God's law to be cleansed of the stain of sin, in that the wages of sin is death.

The animal sacrifices, while they were mandated by God, were imperfect. They had to be repeated for transgressions. Because they were animals, their purity was only superficial (it was required that the animals be without blemish). When Christ lived the perfect life, that purity was not superficial; it was complete. That He chose to give Himself on our behalf because He loved each of us so that He wanted to bridge the gap, reconcile us to God and spend eternity with us brought Him to Calvary as the ultimate sacrifice. His sacrifice was what would cover all sin, past, present and future.

Again, this is a very stripped down version, as most of the Old Testament points to this and the necessity of this and I just attempted to sum it up in a couple of paragraphs. That's the general idea, though.

* We must believe Jesus died for our sins:

First, allow me to say that from the standpoint of scripture, that mainstream belief on not having to believe in God, just that Jesus died for your sins is wrong.

That we must believe in something for it to take effect is not unique to Christ. In the desert during the Exodus, snakes attacked the wandering tribes of Israel that were deadly-poisonous. Long story short (you can read the entire account in Numbers 21), Moses raised a bronze snake on a pole that any Israelite who looked to the snake would be healed of any poison. The healing was there, but there was faith required from the Israelites -- they had to look to the bronze snake. Without doing so, they would die.

James also writes in James 1:6-8,

But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

So the idea of faith for deliverance is not one unique to Christ. But was His sacrifice necessary?

God seems to think so. Again, reinforced by the examples throughout the Old Testament that were pointing to the necessity of the Messiah to come and be slain, God had set up this requirement as an escape clause from the wages of sin being death. That Christ was God made his sin free life possible, but that He was all man at the same time meant He was susceptible to temptation. It would be safe to assume, from a Christian perspective, that Satan would not have bothered attempting to tempt Christ if there was no hope of success, yet he did.

That He rose again was also foretold, and He told His disciples He would. Does that mean that He didn't die? He took on all of the sins of man on the cross, and paid the price for them, in that He died. Yet, at the same time, because He was personally innocent of the sin, He was raised up again. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." First Corinthians 15:12-34 does a good job of beginning to explain the necessity of the resurrection.

I hope this helps shed some light on at least what I've discovered in studying to answer those same questions.

Le tme explain this, you have to listen closely, because this comes from a man without understanding of what (grace) is which is love... thats why st Pual said I have to feed you with milk and not strong meat because some arent advanced in spiritual things to understand grace...

" even if some leads a sinless life "

Thats impossible, our natures are naturall, because we are born without grace, evil....

Goodness comes from his grace, not ourselves, we neither are born with it or grow up with it until we learn it from him..

when I was younger I was lazy, I threw things at mother when I was mad, I didnt have alot of fealings, I got angry over stupid things, esily irittated ect.........

Now that I pray and suffer and work, God has granted me many graces, its a complete 360 change..... Its literally from his grace, which is like a movement of inspiration and love infused into the soul..

FROM HIM ALONE, I am witness to this, I know how I grew up......


Nobody goes to hell unless its their choice.... they choose to reject love and graces and this is their chioce. God doesnt let ANYBODY go to hell and perish unless they will it.... God says..

" ask and it shall be given you, knock and he will let you in "


The sincere heart always converts and find truth, I nofor myself from not being christian, how I converted to the church was remarkable, but it was from a sincere want to know truth.....


He searches the hearts and knows whos evil, whos not, he knows our thoughts ect....

and that goes back to the point that like you said, if someone dies at 12, then how do you know God doesnt see that person growing up being a serial killer?

His timing is perfect because he is perfect..... He knows when to take someone, and how to take them, he created our souls and we belong to him and he takes who he chooses....


" all people are born pure "

Not true... when I was 4-5 I was not a real good boy. Same for my neices.. they grew up throwing things at each other, fighting, throwing things on the floor in front of our faces, and they got beat for it....

They were like hellions before they were baptised...


Now you see this goes back to grace... Grace infuses in the soul and its nothing more than love.... and it produces all the virtues, patience, humility, love, chastity ect.......


I have seen this work in my own soul, I grew up ruthless, so I know this is truth....


Like I said, I see alot of people on here with weak understandings and they have to watch it, watch what st paul said..

" these men blaspheme everything they understand not "

also this is in the prophecy post I posted, that in the end times peoples understanding would be dark, and thats because sin lets satan in the soul and he blinds the understanding...


Ill respond to the rest later.. Please try and understand what im saying babloi
\
peavce

I just read something in a novel that does a far better job of explaining some of this than I can. It's from Frank Peretti's Piercing The Darkness, on page 289:

The Bible says that the penalty for sin is death, but after Jesus paid that penalty He rose from the dead on the third day, so something was different. He conquered sin, so He was able to conquer sin's penalty. Sure, it worked. It always works. Jesus satisfied divine justice on that Cross. He bore the punishment in full, and God never had to bend the rules. That's why we call Jesus our Savior. He shed His own blood in our place, and died, and then rose from the grave to prove He'd won over sin and could set us free.

reply to post by junglejake

Originally posted by junglejake
The contention of scripture isn't necessarily that we're all born psychotic, but rather that we're born rebellious. That we turn from God when He stated that the most important command He'd given was to love the Lord with all of your heart, soul and strength. Christ came to redeem us of this rebellion, that when we accept Him, He comes into our lives and enables us to live completely for God. He builds a bridge in our lives over that rebellious nature, thereby reconciling us to God.

So we'd still be rebellious, but now we'd be saved also?

Also, according to Luke 10:25-37, all I need to do to inherit eternal life is "Love the Lord my God with all my heart, all my soul, all my strength and all mind; and love my neighbor as myself". John 3:16 tells me that I need to believe in God's only begotten son. How does this match up with the fact that I must believe that Jesus sacrificed himself for my sins?


reply to post by JesusisTruth

Since the main point of your post was the 'grace' entered into a person when they accept Christ's sacrifice, I'll address that. I don't know about your personal example, JiT, but I know many, many nonchristian children who are/were very nice, polite, kind, well-tempered, etc. You can't seriously say that it is only christians who are this way, can you?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
and that goes back to the point that like you said, if someone dies at 12, then how do you know God doesnt see that person growing up being a serial killer?

But God knew that that child would die at that point, and never become a serial killer. Or does God punish people for the sins they might have committed also?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
our natures are naturall, because we are born without grace, evil....

So you say that a new born baby isn't innocent, and in fact, is evil? So if this baby dies soon after being born, it will be sent to heaven or hell depending on what they might have done in life?

Please explain further.

PS: You two didn't answer the question in the example. Tell me your thoughts on that situation, please.

To answer for JJ for a minute..


The reason you have to believe God with all your heart and still believe his scrafice is because part of belief in God is part of his death which was the sacrafice which was predicted in the OT....

belief in God and loving him means the full spectrum.



" does God punish the people for the sins they might have commited "

well I dont know Gods mind, but I do know that sometimes he takes people early so they dont build up more judgement upon themselves and more and more sins so their punishment would be worse...

he does everything perfectly, as he can read the heart and knows our thoughts...


" so are you saying that the new born baby isnt innocent "


Im saying that the baby is in original sin, and that it needs batpism to wash that away....

whereever it is sent is up to God, but I hoenstly dont believe any child can go to hell thats under the age of reason...


You have to understand what grace is...I dont know about those children, but I know from personal experience how ruthless, unheartful, lazy, impatient I was without Gods grace..

I mean I had few graces growing up, yea I was nice around strangers, but when I got behind the scenes the true me came out..\
\
You cant see anything from a couple of minutes around a child, trust me they have deficeincies, Like I had...

like I said I was polite around strangers, but I would fight with brother, yell, curse, throw things at mother, hit animals, step on bugs...


Yet I wasnt completely evil.. I never had sex unmarried, I never talked about women filthy, I dont smoke drink, I never would hurt anybody...


Its hard to explain, but youll se what I mean at the judgement seat when my life is reviewed and the whole world will see it... Just as everybodies life will be shown to the whole world.


Peace.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

Im saying that the baby is in original sin, and that it needs batpism to wash that away....

I am guessing that what you are trying to say is that original sin is the reason why people who have not been baptized commit bad deeds. You talk about how bad your neices (or whoever it was) were before they were baptized... So I am thinking that you are crediting their baptism with the change in their behavior.

That's not original sin that's causing those types of behavior. That's a lack of discipline.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
I mean I had few graces growing up, yea I was nice around strangers, but when I got behind the scenes the true me came out..

So being nice around strangers means that you have graces? To me, being nice around strangers but then having the "true" you come out does not mean that you have graces. It means that you are a hypocrite, and dishonest.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

like I said I was polite around strangers, but I would fight with brother, yell, curse, throw things at mother, hit animals, step on bugs...


Yet I wasnt completely evil.. I never had sex unmarried, I never talked about women filthy, I dont smoke drink, I never would hurt anybody...

You would never hurt anybody, but you fought with your brother, threw things at your mother and hit animals? Sounds to me like there was some hurting going on.

And as far as not being "completely evil," how does smoking make you more evil than disrespecting your mother and hurting animals? So putting up a false front and making strangers think you are nice and polite isn't bad, but "talking about women filthy" is "completely evil"?

Just trying to understand.

reply to post by babloyi

* Man is inherently sinful:
This concept doesn't leave the slightest bit of leeway, thus trapping all of humanity with the need for salvation.

I agree.

I have in places echoed your statements as I am in virtual total agreement with the first segment of your post with the exception of the last sentence “God certainly helps here”.

I interpret from the Bible that the reason mankind is born in sin is simply because we are Adam and Eve’s offspring. Adam and Eve who were once perfect became flawed by an act of sin and this damage was passed to their children. This ‘Original Sin’ concept allows God to be held harmless; it also forces all progeny of Adam and Eve to acquire salvation through repentance and submission to the will of God if they desire eternal life.

Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless ‘not my will, but thine, be done.

This was Jesus praying to God about taking the sins of mankind upon him.

For me this begs the debate, how can we truly have free will, if we were born with sin that was passed down to us with no facility offered prior to birth for removal. Only after we reach an age where we are capable of understanding, can we then make choices where our spiritually and salvation are concerned. What of the newborn, whether an hour or several days old who dies. What free will options were afforded them?

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Cybrseer

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad

Originally posted by JesusisTruth



I am guessing that what you are trying to say is that original sin is the reason why people who have not been baptized commit bad deeds. You talk about how bad your neices (or whoever it was) were before they were baptized... So I am thinking that you are crediting their baptism with the change in their behavior.

That's not original sin that's causing those types of behavior. That's a lack of discipline.


No, they were disiplined but it had no effect.... But I literally see a difference in their souls...


So being nice around strangers means that you have graces? To me, being nice around strangers but then having the "true" you come out does not mean that you have graces. It means that you are a hypocrite, and dishonest.


No. I didnt say that... and you cant be a hypocrite at a young age, the mind hasnt developed yet.. What im saying is that I would act properly in front of strangers to the point that (they were starngers) so I didnt really act up around them.... Not saintly, just behaving better....


You would never hurt anybody, but you fought with your brother, threw things at your mother and hit animals? Sounds to me like there was some hurting going on.


I didnt intentially hurt them, me and my brother fought because we were knuckle heads, and I through things at my mother out of anger... Ive seen some people (and this is what I mean by not hurting other) beat people up 7 on 1 for fun and literally get a kick out of it...

thats what I mean.. tryingt to intentially hurt badly something, the stuff I threw at mother were like pieces of paper, I didnt want to hurt her though...

And as far as not being "completely evil," how does smoking make you more evil than disrespecting your mother and hurting animals? So putting up a false front and making strangers think you are nice and polite isn't bad, but "talking about women filthy" is "completely evil"?


I didnt say that did I. filthy women and completely evil were seperate phrases.... in my faith talking about women with filth is wrong thats what I mean. when I say completely evil I mean I grew up with freinds who would gang up on people 7 on 1 (for fun) and get a kick out of hurting people..

I would never go that far...

as for smoking, I used this to give an example that I didnt want to try and fit in and be bad and have a bad image, doesnt mean that smoking is evil, its just against perserving the body..

Just trying to understand.

it seems like your trying to be a smart*** but I forgive you if you were.

anyways, I tried to explain the best way I could, sorry for my langauge.

peace.

Hypnotoad, reread your post.... I think I was wrong, you werent trying to be a smart***..

Sorry, theres another mistake by me again...

peace.