Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Ksa]

I follow the teachings of Jesus. He was brought up as a Jew and was circumcised according to the Jewish law, but he never commanded that we be circumcised. In fact, the main reason that he was crucified was that he upset the Jewish establishment by teaching the people that they didn't have to follow the provisions of the old testament law. He broke the law at times such as healing on the Sabbath. I don't know if he ate pork, but he drank wine at the last supper, though there's no reports of him getting drunk at any time.

Jesus didn't command many things, because he came not to break the old scripture, but to fulfill it, as it is mentioned in Matthew 5:17 which says:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus relied on the fact that you knew the old scripture and you kept it! So he wasn't going to say it all over again. He wasn't going to tell you not to rob also! He came to upgrade the message, not say it all over again.

Imagine you're in standard 2, the math teacher starts his math lesson, he relies on the fact that you know standard 1! Simple common sense. Why would he say everything all over again. That you must be circumcised, that you must not have pork. It's in the old testament for Christ sake! In fact, Jesus says in Matthew 5:20:

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

There is no Heaven for you, unless you're better than the Jew, and how on Earth can you be better if you're not even circumcised!? You tell me! How? Do you worship Jesus or do you worship Satan? Cause you aren't following Jesus. Following Jesus means doing exactly what the Jews do, TO THE LETTER, AND ALSO do what the Bible mentions, ON TOP OF IT. Funny guy thought he could toss the old testament because Jesus came to pay for his sins lol.

[Faith No More]

I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about using different words to describe the same event or talking about different events or aspects to Jesus's ministry. When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

You think the problems with the bible are simply using different words to describe the same event? It can't even get its chronology straight.

And I wonder, if the gospels all wrote the same and referred to the same events, would you then be admitting that the bible seems contrived, or would you be saying that the consistency validates it?

[Tonus]

When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

If the four accounts selected for inclusion in the Bible were exact in every detail then yes, there would be suspicion that they were simply copying from one another or from some other source. But aside from how divergent the accounts get at some points, there is also the issue that their words are supposedly inspired by god. Why couldn't they have written a series of accounts that came together perfectly to provide a single, cohesive report?

[Deepthought]

God does not give purpose in one's live although praising god is very admirable it is not an actual purpose. Hinduism does not exactly answer this question significantly but instead gives a lot of maybes while only Judaism, Islam and Xtianity do this

You couldn't resist the side-swipe at Hinduism, could you?! Have you actual the Ramayana or Mahabarata? (By the age of 17 I had already read the bible from cover to cover.)

You'll find that Hinduism is not fundamentally different from the position you've set out for Islam. I'm an atheist, but I recognise there are useful ideas/concepts in other religions, some of them better than in Islam.

[Godscreated]

Christians cherish this life, it's given us to do God's work and when small children lose their earthly life because of God's plan He rewards them with a life you can't imagine. What have you got against God taking the innocent to heaven, isn't that just and right.

When Bad Writer mentioned the millions of young children who die every year, you stated that they were in heaven with god now. Therefore, to die at a very early age is to be guaranteed heaven, whereas to live a long life is to risk falling out of favor with god and being sent to hell. If heaven is the greatest possible reward, then hell is the greatest possible punishment. Dying as a baby guarantees that you get the greatest possible reward without risking the greatest possible punishment.

Thus, a baby who is taken as part of god's plan is much more highly favored than the person who is allowed to live a long life; he gets the greatest possible reward with no effort on his part, the person who lives a long life must make every effort to earn that reward. So tell me, why would you "cherish" this life, when it's just full of suffering and effort to get something that a baby was given with no effort on his part? Looks like you got the raw deal.

Of all the latest comments to me I find this one the only one worth answering, the rest show the hate and ignorance of Christianity.

Babies and children like most everyone else do no chose their time to die, it's part of life, only through the grace of God do they enter heaven, that grace comes through what is fair to the children. I say again would you want these children to be in hell because they were not fortunate enough to live a longer life. No one need go to hell, everyone has a choice. I see life as a great thing worth living, I made the right choice to accept Christ into my life I have no worries other than those of everyday life and thankfully I have and want Christ to help me through them each day. So no I did not get a raw deal I got eternal life beyond understanding.

GC

[The Valkyrie]

When Bad Writer mentioned the millions of young children who die every year, you stated that they were in heaven with god now. Therefore, to die at a very early age is to be guaranteed heaven, whereas to live a long life is to risk falling out of favor with god and being sent to hell. If heaven is the greatest possible reward, then hell is the greatest possible punishment. Dying as a baby guarantees that you get the greatest possible reward without risking the greatest possible punishment.

Thus, a baby who is taken as part of god's plan is much more highly favored than the person who is allowed to live a long life; he gets the greatest possible reward with no effort on his part, the person who lives a long life must make every effort to earn that reward. So tell me, why would you "cherish" this life, when it's just full of suffering and effort to get something that a baby was given with no effort on his part? Looks like you got the raw deal.

Of all the latest comments to me I find this one the only one worth answering, the rest show the hate and ignorance of Christianity.

Babies and children like most everyone else do no chose their time to die, it's part of life, only through the grace of God do they enter heaven, that grace comes through what is fair to the children. I say again would you want these children to be in hell because they were not fortunate enough to live a longer life. No one need go to hell, everyone has a choice. I see life as a great thing worth living, I made the right choice to accept Christ into my life I have no worries other than those of everyday life and thankfully I have and want Christ to help me through them each day. So no I did not get a raw deal I got eternal life beyond understanding.

GC

So, the only thing you can really respond with is more empty words and claims?

RJA

[Tonus]

I say again would you want these children to be in hell because they were not fortunate enough to live a longer life.

What I would want for them depends on the particular reality I would subscribe to. If I was a Christian who believed that heaven was the greatest possible experience that we could have, I would want those children to die as soon as possible; they would enjoy eternal bliss without risking hellfire and suffering. Skipping life in this world and being transported to the bosom of the creator would be the best possible option.

That is not the reality I subscribe to, of course. So what I would want for those children is that they not die at a young age, that they get he chance to live out a longer life with the hope that it is one marked by achievement and happiness.

But think about it, if this life is just a test for getting into heaven with the very real risk of suffering eternal torment, the best option really is to die as soon as possible. Jesus said that the path to salvation was long and narrow and few would find it, so it is not easy to gain heaven and many Christians believe that many other Christians will not make it because they are not doing it right. So the guaranteed path to heaven is to die as young as possible.

[Godscreated]

I say again would you want these children to be in hell because they were not fortunate enough to live a longer life.

What I would want for them depends on the particular reality I would subscribe to. If I was a Christian who believed that heaven was the greatest possible experience that we could have, I would want those children to die as soon as possible; they would enjoy eternal bliss without risking hellfire and suffering. Skipping life in this world and being transported to the bosom of the creator would be the best possible option.

That is not the reality I subscribe to, of course. So what I would want for those children is that they not die at a young age, that they get he chance to live out a longer life with the hope that it is one marked by achievement and happiness.

But think about it, if this life is just a test for getting into heaven with the very real risk of suffering eternal torment, the best option really is to die as soon as possible. Jesus said that the path to salvation was long and narrow and few would find it, so it is not easy to gain heaven and many Christians believe that many other Christians will not make it because they are not doing it right. So the guaranteed path to heaven is to die as young as possible.

This life is not a test to get into heaven and there is no risk of hell, it's chosen just like heaven is. I see that your thinking would end the human population in one generation, denying future people their choice for heaven or hell. Jesus did not say the path to heaven was long, and He did not say it was hard to find. Christians who say other Christians may not be saved comes from what we know scripture says about how Christians can be identified, that certain actions come from an unchanged heart. You can't do anything to gain salvation other than to accept the offered gift of grace from God.

GC

---

I follow the teachings of Jesus. He was brought up as a Jew and was circumcised according to the Jewish law, but he never commanded that we be circumcised. In fact, the main reason that he was crucified was that he upset the Jewish establishment by teaching the people that they didn't have to follow the provisions of the old testament law. He broke the law at times such as healing on the Sabbath. I don't know if he ate pork, but he drank wine at the last supper, though there's no reports of him getting drunk at any time.

Jesus didn't command many things, because he came not to break the old scripture, but to fulfill it, as it is mentioned in Matthew 5:17 which says:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus relied on the fact that you knew the old scripture and you kept it! So he wasn't going to say it all over again. He wasn't going to tell you not to rob also! He came to upgrade the message, not say it all over again.

Imagine you're in standard 2, the math teacher starts his math lesson, he relies on the fact that you know standard 1! Simple common sense. Why would he say everything all over again. That you must be circumcised, that you must not have pork. It's in the old testament for Christ sake! In fact, Jesus says in Matthew 5:20:

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

There is no Heaven for you, unless you're better than the Jew, and how on Earth can you be better if you're not even circumcised!? You tell me! How? Do you worship Jesus or do you worship Satan? Cause you aren't following Jesus. Following Jesus means doing exactly what the Jews do, TO THE LETTER, AND ALSO do what the Bible mentions, ON TOP OF IT. Funny guy thought he could toss the old testament because Jesus came to pay for his sins lol.

It's apparent you know nothing about Christ and why He came, John 3:16 says "for God so loved the world he gave His only begotten Son and that whosoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life. As for the Pharisees, Christ was saying that they had no righteousness, He said they know the law and they do the law without love and with arrogance and that doing the law will not get them into heaven. That's right these Jews you are bragging on, if they did not come to know Christ before they died will spend eternity in hell. Christ said many times that He is the only way into salvation and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Since salvation belongs to Christ I would think that He speaks with the only authority need on salvation, you seem to believe you can twist and change scripture around to make it say whatever you want, guess what you can, still doesn't change what Christ's authority on salvation and how we receive it.

GC

---

I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about using different words to describe the same event or talking about different events or aspects to Jesus's ministry. When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

You think the problems with the bible are simply using different words to describe the same event? It can't even get its chronology straight.

And I wonder, if the gospels all wrote the same and referred to the same events, would you then be admitting that the bible seems contrived, or would you be saying that the consistency validates it?

The books of the Bible were organized by man and they found reason to place them as they did, actually there are chronological Bibles I have one, so you have lost one of your arguments.
If the NT gospels were written exactly the same I was most would suspect they were contrived, just as witnesses for a criminal are suspect when there stories match to a tee.

GC

[Tonus]

This life is not a test to get into heaven and there is no risk of hell, it's chosen just like heaven is.

Are you saying that once you choose heaven, you are guaranteed to go there? Or is there an ongoing effort involved?

I see that your thinking would end the human population in one generation, denying future people their choice for heaven or hell.

I am pointing out that in the scenario you described, it's the best option for each individual. It guarantees heaven without risk of hell, and the only price to pay is a short and imperfect life on Earth.

Jesus did not say the path to heaven was long, and He did not say it was hard to find. Christians who say other Christians may not be saved comes from what we know scripture says about how Christians can be identified, that certain actions come from an unchanged heart. You can't do anything to gain salvation other than to accept the offered gift of grace from God.

Yes, you are correct about what Jesus said. The path is narrow and difficult and few will find it. The point being that Jesus acknowledges that few will be saved. In another verse he also says that not everyone who claims to have served him will achieve salvation. Which means that gaining salvation is not easy and few will do so, including many who believed that they were following Christ.

If that is the case and few people will ever be saved, then those who get to skip the process are lucky, it seems to me. Compared to an eternity, this life is so brief that it will seem like the blink of an eye. Skipping it really does seem like the best option to me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about using different words to describe the same event or talking about different events or aspects to Jesus's ministry. When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

You think the problems with the bible are simply using different words to describe the same event? It can't even get its chronology straight.

And I wonder, if the gospels all wrote the same and referred to the same events, would you then be admitting that the bible seems contrived, or would you be saying that the consistency validates it?

Again, it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too.

Truthfully, it doesn't actually matter the chronology, or indeed the content. Someone who believes in it so devoutly will always find a way to weasel out of any contradictions or inconsistencies, even if it means fundamentally altering the definition of a word or indeed embarking on a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.