Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: If I'm a Good Person, Why Do I Need a Saviour?
Quikstepper Joined Mon 04/28/08 Posts: 2998	Sat 07/26/08 05:30 PM
They reject it because of what they know, not from lack of knowledge. Exactly. And what's the deal with sharing "faith"? Faith is just a belief in something that you confess that you don't know to be true. If you had proof you could give that instead of "sharing faith". The "sharing faith" idea is truly a worn-out cliché. Sharing faith means something to those who wait for their promise to be revealed. You miss the entire point in that it takes faith in something that doesn't exist so when it materializes we know it's from God & not of ourselves. You miss the entire concept that there are those who can claim their experience in KNOWING GOD & it's as real as your are. It's up to God to reveal to whom He chooses. I can only point the way & that's why God says we are not responsible for how people react to our faith. We only plant seeds. God does the rest. Abra...your fight is not with me. I know that if God revealed Himself to you then you would know what I know. I'm not saying He will or He won't. I say never say never. The idea that we have all fallen from the grace of God and we need a savior is a farce. It's an ancient myth that was designed on the superstition that blood sacrifices can appease the gods and thus wash away our "sins" making the gods happy again. This culminated into a fairytale about the god sending his own son as a sacrificial lamb to appease himself for the sins of all mankind. The whole sin and salvation trip is a myth. Blood doesn't wash away sins. Mankind is not responsible for the dog-eat-dog competitive nature of the world. We can indeed rise above it if we wish to, but we don't need to feel guilty about it because we didn't cause it. If anything some of us have risen above it. Hopefully given enough time all of us will eventually rise above it. In the meantime, the only 'faith' people seem to be sharing is the 'faith' that they believe we are the cause of it and we must appease the gods for our guilt. But clearly that 'faith' is misplaced. WOW! You really miss the mark. LOL A better place to put our 'faith' would be in ourselves. We should have 'faith' that as a species of living animal we can indeed rise above it. And one way to start rising above it would be to quit trying to force ignorant mythologies down each other's throats. That's not helping anything. We need to recognize that we have an opportunity to rise above the dog-eat-dog nature of the world, and quit trying to force everyone into believing that we were the cause of it. WOW again! LOL You want to leave humanity up to man? Man who can't do anything right? WOW! You're a fool...then again. That makes YOU a candidate for God's glory. I say never say never. LOL LOL... funnier words were never spoken.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sat 07/26/08 05:53 PM
Any faith that cannot be laid open and seriously considered and debated is not only unworthy of a God but is unworthy of anything that looks like serious belief. Shouldn't people of faith welcome such critiques? It really makes me wonder about the level of understanding of a faith when even the most elementary arguments are discounted as nothing more than mean spirited arguments. Sad. -Drew Agreed.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sat 07/26/08 06:06 PM
You miss the entire point in that it takes faith in something that doesn't exist so when it materializes we know it's from God & not of ourselves. I don't miss the point at all. On the contrary I'm not an atheist. People seem to be forgetting that completely. I believe I have more faith in my spirituality than most people who claim to be Christians have faith in theirs. I can totally discount and toss away manmade dogma and still have faith in my spirituality. How many Christians can do that? I have complete faith in my spirituality. We're talking about ancient Mediterranian folklore and whether or not it has anything to do with our true nature. This is where so many people miss the point. It doesn't matter how you think of your higher power. If you want to beleive that your higher power resides in some man who died 2000 years ago that'll work. The disgusting part of that belief is when you start claiming that everyone needs to believe in their higher power that way. That's when it becomes judgmental. When you do that you are automatically judging eveyone who doesn't think of their higher power in that way to be out of 'grace' with "god". That's where the bigotry and judgment come into play. The folklore that you've decided to buy into forces you to become a bigot. That's just the way it is. Sad but true. I don't denounce God. I denounce bigotry.

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 07/26/08 06:06 PM
I am truly sorry but no one and I mean no one....can talk about faith as if they know.....because you do not know what it is if you have not experienced it...and therefore have no say it what it's meaning is. "Feralcatlady" ..what are you talking about ... anyone that took a chance on eating a Chicken McNugget experienced faith your a goofball....and of course the perfect example of what I say....can't speak on what you truly don't know...or have not experienced....ya baby ok then baby honey..now explain how you know what I know or don't know or have not experience .. Because my pumpkin face....if you did....then all the things you argue on....just would not be......And I know what I know because I know my lil funch-meister....that faith is not within your cutieful self....at least not the faith which I speak of.

scttrbrain Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 5769	Sat 07/26/08 07:49 PM
Ahemmm..........early on Jesus himself used the strength and wisdom of women to preach his word. He used women to communicate and show His way. He used women to stop a war. He used women to teach. Women were the only ones left at His side at the cross. Women are the ones that didn't run when the skys went black and the storms ran across the sky.Women followed Him throughout His history, even to His death. Jesus repeatedly turned to women to show His love, His mercy, His salvation. Does that sound like Jesus (God) had no dependence towards women to send out His message?? Kat In all honesty Kat, this just sounds to me like Jesus had absolutely nothing in common with the God of Abraham. For someone who was supposed to be the God of Abraham he sure didn't seem to support the same ideals. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. But the God of Abraham taught an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In Jesus' day the Jews were still stoning sinners to death supposedly (via the directive given to them by the God of Abraham). But Jesus didn't seem to approve of that act. So again we see a huge difference in persona. Now you're pointing out the fact that Jesus viewed and treated women differently than the God of Abraham did in the Old Testament. Just more reason for me to believe that they weren't the same persona. I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But why is it that everything seems to always contradict itself in this book that is supposed to be from an all-wise un-changing creator? Just sounds like mixed-messages to me. Who are we supposed to believe? Jesus? Or the God of Abraham? Clearly they don't support the same philosophies. Why would an all-wise creator send mankind a self-inconsistent book that sends mixed messages? For me, that alone is a huge problem. A book that is supposed to be from an unchanging God but it keeps changing what it wants from us. That's a mixed message right there. I myself have seen the differences in the old and new testaments. It is in the old one that women were treated better. Somewhere in there it is obvious that someone else wrote something that was of a differing view. It was as if day and night. Or...switching the lights from off to on. If God is never changing...then who did the changing? God doesn't change His mind....but someone decided to do it for Him. There are strange differences... Kat Kat

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sat 07/26/08 08:01 PM Edited by tribo on Sat 07/26/08 08:02 PM
Ahemmm..........early on Jesus himself used the strength and wisdom of women to preach his word. He used women to communicate and show His way. He used women to stop a war. He used women to teach. Women were the only ones left at His side at the cross. Women are the ones that didn't run when the skys went black and the storms ran across the sky.Women followed Him throughout His history, even to His death. Jesus repeatedly turned to women to show His love, His mercy, His salvation. Does that sound like Jesus (God) had no dependence towards women to send out His message?? Kat In all honesty Kat, this just sounds to me like Jesus had absolutely nothing in common with the God of Abraham. For someone who was supposed to be the God of Abraham he sure didn't seem to support the same ideals. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. But the God of Abraham taught an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In Jesus' day the Jews were still stoning sinners to death supposedly (via the directive given to them by the God of Abraham). But Jesus didn't seem to approve of that act. So again we see a huge difference in persona. Now you're pointing out the fact that Jesus viewed and treated women differently than the God of Abraham did in the Old Testament. Just more reason for me to believe that they weren't the same persona. I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But why is it that everything seems to always contradict itself in this book that is supposed to be from an all-wise un-changing creator? Just sounds like mixed-messages to me. Who are we supposed to believe? Jesus? Or the God of Abraham? Clearly they don't support the same philosophies. Why would an all-wise creator send mankind a self-inconsistent book that sends mixed messages? For me, that alone is a huge problem. A book that is supposed to be from an unchanging God but it keeps changing what it wants from us. That's a mixed message right there. I myself have seen the differences in the old and new testaments. It is in the old one that women were treated better. Somewhere in there it is obvious that someone else wrote something that was of a differing view. It was as if day and night. Or...switching the lights from off to on. If God is never changing...then who did the changing? God doesn't change His mind....but someone decided to do it for Him. There are strange differences... Kat Kat tribo: kat as i said to david: David, many do not read the word carefully enough, though i am not a christian i do know that Paul states this in 1st Corinthians, vs 12 - " But to the rest speak "I" " NOT THE LORD" and continues on from there - it is Paul saying these things - not god/Jesus/HS stating such as you comment on. So much of paul's writings are of Paul and not directly from god you have to look carefully as to whether it is him speaking or not. just a clue, unless he states that it is from god it is from him and he still followed after jewish tradition to a degree whether any want to admit it or not. though I'm sure it will be shot down by the others who believe every word is given by god even when Paul so adamantly states the contrary

scttrbrain Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 5769	Sat 07/26/08 08:43 PM
Hi Tribo. I am aware of the "who's speaking" thing", but wasn't God supposed to be leading them through thought? Hmmmm dunno... I do know that somewhere in there someone died but his writings carried on....hense changes. Kat

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sat 07/26/08 09:00 PM
Hi Tribo. I am aware of the "who's speaking" thing", but wasn't God supposed to be leading them through thought? Hmmmm dunno... I do know that somewhere in there someone died but his writings carried on....hense changes. Kat hi love, well let's look at that a minute, if he was always speaking by the holy spirit or by god - why would he even bother stating this that he states "but to the rest "I" speak, not the lord? why bother making the statement at all unless it was to let the Corinthians know that this was Paul's thoughts on the following subjects and not some commandments of god? You can or they here can say it was still of god, but I'm not convinced of that i think he talked from being who he was before and of things of the Jewish beliefs or personal beliefs, why? well his language is different than it is normally when speaking from his own mind at least i see or pick up on that - maybe others dont. When your looking for truths i think you look harder than others who are just reading casualy and taking whats said for granted as being the word of god. but thats just my opinion.

RainbowTrout Joined Fri 04/06/07 Posts: 13869	Sat 07/26/08 09:15 PM
Miles, I am beginning to see where minute differences can make a big difference. I mean look at the show Star Trek. In one episode the away team went to this unknown world. Captain Kirk first thought that they were 'sun' worshippers but at the end of the show found out they were 'son' worshippers. I mean to an Egyptian this would make a big difference because of 'Ra'.

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 07/26/08 10:05 PM
First off you can't take 12 without 10 because then you get the full context of what is said.....I think a lot of times people take 1 piece of scripture and run with it....but you have to look at it as a whole to get it. In 10 Not Paul but the Lord himself..... 1st Corinthians 7: 10-12 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. Then in 12 Paul says not the Lord. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Now understand that also at least for me....All the men/women of the Bible spoke through and for God. Giving all the Glory to God...whether it be them speaking to a crowd or amongst themselves...all in the Glory and giving the Glory to God.

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sat 07/26/08 10:41 PM
First off you can't take 12 without 10 because then you get the full context of what is said.....I think a lot of times people take 1 piece of scripture and run with it....but you have to look at it as a whole to get it. In 10 Not Paul but the Lord himself..... 1st Corinthians 7: 10-12 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. Then in 12 Paul says not the Lord. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Now understand that also at least for me....All the men/women of the Bible spoke through and for God. Giving all the Glory to God...whether it be them speaking to a crowd or amongst themselves...all in the Glory and giving the Glory to God. i was very aware of 10 and 11 deb and your correct in taking all inot concideration stil the fact remains that if you look and read closely his language is dfferent at least i pick that up anyway - its much the same as when he writes personal letters to timothy and others that were meant for them and not the church per se.

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 07/26/08 11:06 PM
First off you can't take 12 without 10 because then you get the full context of what is said.....I think a lot of times people take 1 piece of scripture and run with it....but you have to look at it as a whole to get it. In 10 Not Paul but the Lord himself..... 1st Corinthians 7: 10-12 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. Then in 12 Paul says not the Lord. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Now understand that also at least for me....All the men/women of the Bible spoke through and for God. Giving all the Glory to God...whether it be them speaking to a crowd or amongst themselves...all in the Glory and giving the Glory to God. i was very aware of 10 and 11 deb and your correct in taking all inot concideration stil the fact remains that if you look and read closely his language is dfferent at least i pick that up anyway - its much the same as when he writes personal letters to timothy and others that were meant for them and not the church per se. this is very true tribo.....but I don't think it's the most important in how it's written as why it is written....I think paul was just adding for clairfication with vs 12. What do you think tribo?

s1owhand Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29437	Sun 07/27/08 04:22 AM
this is an excellent question. good is relative but we do have standards. i you are good relative to these standards then you do not need a "savior". you need the standard. the standard may be called god. one god is required to preserve the value of the standard. but beyond this god=standard of good you need nothing else. a righteous god, a loving god, the god in which i believe, does not damn those who meet high standards in themselves and inspire goodness in others no matter what religion they follow. or even if they follow no religion at all in the formal sense. compassion, righteousness, love

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 07/27/08 06:01 AM
I am truly sorry but no one and I mean no one....can talk about faith as if they know.....because you do not know what it is if you have not experienced it...and therefore have no say it what it's meaning is. "Feralcatlady" ..what are you talking about ... anyone that took a chance on eating a Chicken McNugget experienced faith your a goofball....and of course the perfect example of what I say....can't speak on what you truly don't know...or have not experienced....ya baby ok then baby honey..now explain how you know what I know or don't know or have not experience .. Because my pumpkin face....if you did....then all the things you argue on....just would not be......And I know what I know because I know my lil funch-meister....that faith is not within your cutieful self....at least not the faith which I speak of. ok "Frealcatlady" I have to admit you are right ..my common sense just won't allow me to enter into the fantasy world of faith and fool myself into believeing it's not just that ... fantasy

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sun 07/27/08 08:42 AM
ok then baby honey..now explain how you know what I know or don't know or have not experience .. Because my pumpkin face....if you did....then all the things you argue on....just would not be......And I know what I know because I know my lil funch-meister....that faith is not within your cutieful self....at least not the faith which I speak of. ok "Frealcatlady" I have to admit you are right ..my common sense just won't allow me to enter into the fantasy world of faith and fool myself into believeing it's not just that ... fantasy I am truly sorry but no one and I mean no one....can talk about faith as if they know.....because you do not know what it is if you have not experienced it...and therefore have no say it what it's meaning is. "Feralcatlady" ..what are you talking about ... anyone that took a chance on eating a Chicken McNugget experienced faith your a goofball....and of course the perfect example of what I say....can't speak on what you truly don't know...or have not experienced....ya baby of course I was right...

sam53 Joined Wed 03/12/08 Posts: 2073	Sun 07/27/08 08:48 AM
If you are a good person you definitely do not need a saviour and if you are a bad person the law will punish you . So a religious saviour is just another MYTH added to the religious nasty equation .

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 07/27/08 09:37 AM
ok then baby honey..now explain how you know what I know or don't know or have not experience .. Because my pumpkin face....if you did....then all the things you argue on....just would not be......And I know what I know because I know my lil funch-meister....that faith is not within your cutieful self....at least not the faith which I speak of. ok "Frealcatlady" I have to admit you are right ..my common sense just won't allow me to enter into the fantasy world of faith and fool myself into believeing it's not just that ... fantasy I am truly sorry but no one and I mean no one....can talk about faith as if they know.....because you do not know what it is if you have not experienced it...and therefore have no say it what it's meaning is. "Feralcatlady" ..what are you talking about ... anyone that took a chance on eating a Chicken McNugget experienced faith your a goofball....and of course the perfect example of what I say....can't speak on what you truly don't know...or have not experienced....ya baby of course I was right... but then again the experience can be induce with the use of pharmaceuticals or for some people that state of mind would occur if they don't take their prescribed medication

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 07/27/08 10:12 AM
First off you can't take 12 without 10 because then you get the full context of what is said.....I think a lot of times people take 1 piece of scripture and run with it....but you have to look at it as a whole to get it. In 10 Not Paul but the Lord himself..... 1st Corinthians 7: 10-12 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. Then in 12 Paul says not the Lord. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Now understand that also at least for me....All the men/women of the Bible spoke through and for God. Giving all the Glory to God...whether it be them speaking to a crowd or amongst themselves...all in the Glory and giving the Glory to God. i was very aware of 10 and 11 deb and your correct in taking all inot concideration stil the fact remains that if you look and read closely his language is dfferent at least i pick that up anyway - its much the same as when he writes personal letters to timothy and others that were meant for them and not the church per se. this is very true tribo.....but I don't think it's the most important in how it's written as why it is written....I think paul was just adding for clairfication with vs 12. What do you think tribo? can't argue with you on that deb, but i still think that many times when paul is talking to timothy or the others in personal letters it sounds different then when he is adressing the whole church such as corthn, and the rest - that is why i think he said what he said in cor,vs 12 - so that they would know - the leaders there as well as the church - that he was speaking as himself and not as that of the lords words or commands as he had just stated in 10 11. if not then you'll have to ask your spirit to explain why i'm seeing this wrong.

Milesoftheusa Joined Fri 10/27/06 Posts: 5122	Sun 07/27/08 10:57 AM
Mark 10:4-15 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement , and to put her away. 5 And Yahshua answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation Elohim made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore Elohim hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. 13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Yahshua saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of Yahweh. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of Yahweh as a little child, he shall not enter therein. KJV Now in light of what Paul said about the children would be unclean. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Nothing unclean can enter the kingdom. So when Yahshua said what he did above and then it immediately goes to the children speaking of who would deny them.. Could all this also bespeaking of what a mother and father does to the children who divorce except for adultry? Shalom...Miles

tribo Joined Mon 05/12/08 Posts: 5577	Sun 07/27/08 11:04 AM
Mark 10:4-15 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement , and to put her away. 5 And Yahshua answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation Elohim made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore Elohim hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. 13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Yahshua saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of Yahweh. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of Yahweh as a little child, he shall not enter therein. KJV Now in light of what Paul said about the children would be unclean. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Nothing unclean can enter the kingdom. So when Yahshua said what he did above and then it immediately goes to the children speaking of who would deny them.. Could all this also bespeaking of what a mother and father does to the children who divorce except for adultry? Shalom...Miles could very well be miles - good input.