How do I get saved? I put my trust in the finished work of God

[b***@juno.com]

All other religions other than Christianity are based on you saving
yourself by trying hard enough to live up to a particular code of
ethics.

Christianity alone is based on the finished work of God Incarnate. When
Jesus Christ, who was the sole Incarnation of God, died on the cross
and rose again, his actions were enough to save the entire human race.

All other religions are man trying to reach toward God. Christianity,
on the other hand, is God reaching toward us.

Thus Christianity alone is truly God's work. All other religions are
man's work.

Get saved now, by placing your trust in the finished work of Jesus when
He died for your sins and rose again!!!!!!!!!!!

[B.G. Kent]

The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

and if so.....where is the proof once again?

Also..if someone such as Jesus died on the cross (how he died being
God..when God does not die is another matter altogether) for to wipe
clean our sins....and save us....
did it not take? You'd think this would be enough no? Do you think God
wants more flesh sacrifices to satiate it? Does this not paint God as
some being that is rather unforgiving? What do you want..my blood?
My own mum would not want me to kill myself to show my love for her or to
wipe clean the sins of my siblings...so why should God?


Just a lot of thoughts on the matter.
I don't necessarily agree one way or another or even agree with what I am
written as a supposed truth...I am just curious as to others attitudes on
the
matter.

Bren

[Jeff Caird]

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

Not 'invented.' This is part and parcel of orthodox
Christianity 101. Sin has consequences, both temporal and
eternal. We need to be saved from these consequences just as
we need to be saved from the consequences of inhaling lake
water...

[...]

Post by B.G. Kent
Also..if someone such as Jesus died on the cross [...] did it not take?

Yes, it did.

Post by B.G. Kent
You'd think this would be enough no?

Yes, sufficient to all those who receive it.

Post by B.G. Kent
Do you think God wants more flesh sacrifices to satiate it?

Nope.

Post by B.G. Kent
Does this not paint God as some being that is rather unforgiving?

Nope.,

Post by B.G. Kent
What do you want..my blood?

That's up to you. You can either accept Jesus' shed blood for
the forgiveness of your sins or you can insist that your
righteousnes is sufficient to justify you. Isn't that great?
You have the choice of how you will 'go out.'

Post by B.G. Kent
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

It wasn't 'invented'. It was discovered. Nor was it discovered only in
the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Buddhism has a notion of "having to be
saved", too.

Post by B.G. Kent
and if so.....where is the proof once again?

For someone as fanatically one-sided as you, who demand proof from
others but never have any yourself, no proof is possible.

Post by B.G. Kent
Also..if someone such as Jesus died on the cross (how he died being
God..when God does not die is another matter altogether) for to wipe
clean our sins....and save us.... did it not take?

Ah, now this is an interesting point. What a pity, then, that you then

Post by B.G. Kent
You'd think this would be enough no? Do you think God wants more
flesh sacrifices to satiate it?

Of _course_ not! His was the _final_ flesh sacrifice.

Post by B.G. Kent
Does this not paint God as some being that is rather unforgiving?
What do you want..my blood? My own mum would not want me to kill
myself to show my love for her or to wipe clean the sins of my
siblings...so why should God?
Just a lot of thoughts on the matter.

And not one of them a thoughtful thought.

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't necessarily agree one way or another or even agree with what
I am written as a supposed truth...

You do not express yourself coherently enough to agree even with
yourself! "I am written as a supposed truth"? I'm not sure I even want
to know what _that_ was supposed to mean.

Post by B.G. Kent
I am just curious as to others attitudes on the matter.

Are you really? Your entire posting history in this NG makes it pretty
clear that you are not really intersted in what others say. All you
are really interested in is attacking "traditional christianity",
dismissing it as a form of ignorance, while promoting your own
pseudo-neo-paganism as "christianity".

[b***@juno.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

God.

Post by B.G. Kent
and if so.....where is the proof once again?

I will prove it to you, once you first prove to me that you are not a
brain in a vat like in the movie "the Matrix."

My point is, there is no way that we can ultimately prove anything.
Thus your repeated requests for "proof" are not valid, especially in a
Christian newsgroup.

Post by B.G. Kent
Also..if someone such as Jesus died on the cross (how he died being
God..when God does not die is another matter altogether) for to wipe
clean our sins....and save us....
did it not take?

It did take. That is why Universalism is true. However, there will also
be finite punishment for those who do not consciously place their trust
in the finished work of Christ.

Post by B.G. Kent
You'd think this would be enough no? Do you think God
wants more flesh sacrifices to satiate it?

No, He does not. Christ's is enough.

Post by B.G. Kent
Does this not paint God as
some being that is rather unforgiving?

No, see above about Universalism.

Post by B.G. Kent
My own mum would not want me to kill myself to show my love for her or to
wipe clean the sins of my siblings...so why should God?

God did because to lay down your life for another is the ultimate
example of love. No greater love than to lay down your life for your
friends. God sent his Son, to demonstrate for all time how we ought to
act toward one another. Just as Christ was willing to die for us, so we
ought to be willing to die for each other.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

God.

Post by B.G. Kent
and if so.....where is the proof once again?

I will prove it to you, once you first prove to me that you are not a
brain in a vat like in the movie "the Matrix."

B - But there is a difference...I never said I was...However you state
that God said this...where is your proof?

Post by b***@juno.com
My point is, there is no way that we can ultimately prove anything.
Thus your repeated requests for "proof" are not valid, especially in a
Christian newsgroup.

B - If so....then perhaps people should not be making objective truth
statements which are opinions in disguise.

It all boils down to you saying that Christians can say red is blue
because God said it is...and have no one challenge them on it.
Interesting way to live.


Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

God.

Post by B.G. Kent
and if so.....where is the proof once again?

I will prove it to you, once you first prove to me that you are not a
brain in a vat like in the movie "the Matrix."
My point is, there is no way that we can ultimately prove anything.

A-c-c-c-ck! This is solipsism, not Christianity!

Post by b***@juno.com
Thus your repeated requests for "proof" are not valid, especially in a
Christian newsgroup.

Yes, here repeated requests for 'proof' are not valid, but solipsism is not the
reason why.

[snip]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by B.G. Kent
The concept of having to be "saved" .....who invented it?

Not 'invented.' This is part and parcel of orthodox
Christianity 101. Sin has consequences, both temporal and
eternal. We need to be saved from these consequences just as
we need to be saved from the consequences of inhaling lake
water...

B - er yes? but someone invented it obviously no?

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by B.G. Kent
What do you want..my blood?

That's up to you. You can either accept Jesus' shed blood for
the forgiveness of your sins or you can insist that your
righteousnes is sufficient to justify you. Isn't that great?
You have the choice of how you will 'go out.'

B - I can also accept smoking or non-smoking....but that has little to do
with God.

Bren

[b***@juno.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
A-c-c-c-ck! This is solipsism, not Christianity!

No, it is not solipsism. Or let me put it this way: It is
EPISTEMOLOGICAL solipsism, but not METAPHYSICAL solipsism.

Here is the difference:

Epistemological solipsism (ES) says:
"There is no way to prove that anything exists outside my own brain."

Metaphysical solipsism (MS) says:
"There is, in point of fact, nothing whatsoever that exists outside my
own brain."

The difference is that ES merely states the lack of proof for an
external world, whereas MS actually asserts that the external world not
only cannot be proven to exist, but in point of fact does not exist at
all.

The only reason I use it, however, is to emphasize the fact that FAITH
is necessary on every level of our existence. Why, we have to have
faith to even believe that there is anything outside of our own minds!

Under this idea, it is ridiculous to demand "proof" for things. You can
demand "plausibility" perhaps, but nothing more.

[b***@juno.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - But there is a difference...I never said I was...However you state
that God said this...where is your proof?

My proof is found in the Bible. And in a Christian newsgroup, guess
what? The Bible is considered the highest authority.

You should not post your opinions in a Christian newsgroup, unless you
are willing to accept the Bible as AXIOMATIC. That is the legitimate
framework for the discussion.

And since you have shown in the past that you DON'T consider the Bible
to be axiomatic, your comments just come across as comical. A sort of
class clown.

Trying to lob your non-sequitur opinions into our debates, from outside
our system of axioms, is like trying to apply hyperbolic geometry in a
Euclidean framework. Won't work.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - If so....then perhaps people should not be making objective truth
statements which are opinions in disguise.

We claim to follow a certain system of axioms called "the Bible."
Within that framework, things can be proved and disproved. Outside of
that framework, different things can be proved and disproved. But
outside that framework, the discussion is no longer "Christian" in any
meaningfull sense.

The fact that you do not accept the authority of the Bible, de facto
means you are not operating from a Christian perspective. That's just
how it is.

Post by B.G. Kent
It all boils down to you saying that Christians can say red is blue
because God said it is...and have no one challenge them on it.
Interesting way to live.

"Interesting?" Sounds like you are passing a negative judgment on us.
And this is coming from somebody who likes to say we shouldn't judge.

[w***@victoria.tc.ca]

Post by b***@juno.com
You should not post your opinions in a Christian newsgroup, unless you
are willing to accept the Bible as AXIOMATIC. That is the legitimate
framework for the discussion.
And since you have shown in the past that you DON'T consider the Bible
to be axiomatic, your comments just come across as comical. A sort of
class clown.
Trying to lob your non-sequitur opinions into our debates, from outside
our system of axioms, is like trying to apply hyperbolic geometry in a
Euclidean framework. Won't work.

B - as to the first paragraph...I can post my opinions as a Christian
to a Christian newsgroup if I darn well please. It is up to the
moderator to decide what gets on and what doesn't. ...not you dear sir.
You also do not make the framework or lead any of it.

Second paragraph....you don't speak for all and you never will. If you
see my comments as comical..then by all means my good man "laugh and
the world laughs with you..fart and you stand alone."

third paragraph...here you go again "our debates" "our axioms" Goodness
dear readers did you all know that you agree with Bims and that he
speaks for all of you? Get a bigger hat my friend....

Blessings
Bren

[w***@victoria.tc.ca]

Post by b***@juno.com
"Interesting?" Sounds like you are passing a negative judgment on us.
And this is coming from somebody who likes to say we shouldn't judge.

B - Red herring red herring....
First off...define "us"...second off...how am I passing a negative
judgment?

If you're going to accuse...make sure you know what you are accusing.

Bren

[b***@juno.com]

Post by w***@victoria.tc.ca
B - as to the first paragraph...I can post my opinions as a Christian
to a Christian newsgroup if I darn well please. It is up to the
moderator to decide what gets on and what doesn't. ...not you dear sir.
You also do not make the framework or lead any of it.

Sure, you CAN post your opinions. But what's the point? It is like you
trying to use Algebra in a Calculus class. You are totally outside our
frame of reference. It's like you are trying to speak French to a
bunch of English speakers.

Post by w***@victoria.tc.ca
Second paragraph....you don't speak for all and you never will. If you
see my comments as comical..then by all means my good man "laugh and
the world laughs with you..fart and you stand alone."

Not always comical. But often non-sequiturs. More often than not.

Post by w***@victoria.tc.ca
third paragraph...here you go again "our debates" "our axioms" Goodness
dear readers did you all know that you agree with Bims and that he
speaks for all of you? Get a bigger hat my friend....

Well, I may not speak for all. But there is no doubt that legitimate
Christians have always considered the Bible to be our particular set of
axioms. Surely you realize this?

Only ultra-liberal pseudo-Christians don't use the Bible as axiomatic.
And this quasi-Christianity is a very recent historical development. If
such a belief system qualifies as "Christianity"...... it only BARELY
does so on the most superficial level.

Christianity is not summarized by the idea that we should "be nice to
people." That seems to be your view of what it means to be Christian.
Am I wrong?

[B.G. Kent]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by w***@victoria.tc.ca
B - as to the first paragraph...I can post my opinions as a Christian
to a Christian newsgroup if I darn well please. It is up to the
moderator to decide what gets on and what doesn't. ...not you dear sir.
You also do not make the framework or lead any of it.

Sure, you CAN post your opinions. But what's the point? It is like you

B - because if there are other Christians of the like of myself...that are
far more quiet I want them to know that they are not alone..that not all
Christians are a stereotype or right wing fundies...that we vary and we
thrive and we will not let the literalists hijack Jesus.

I'm not a herd follower and never have been....I don't buckle to peer
pressure and never have...my faith is strong and God is my light...I walk
my path for God...not your egoic self. No one speaks for God alone..we all
hear God if we listen.

I.M.O

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <XBezg.5717$***@trnddc02>, ***@juno.com says...
[snip]

Post by b***@juno.com
Only ultra-liberal pseudo-Christians don't use the Bible as axiomatic.

This is not true. Although the "ultra-liberal pseudo-Christians" are easily the
most _prominent_ among those who "don't use the Bible as axiomatic", there are
also those who understand that the Bible never taught that salvation is found in
casuistry, who _also_ reject the use of the Bible as a set of _axioms_. It was
Euclid (or that obscure Egyptian priest who inspired Euclid) who invented the
axiomatic system, NOT any Biblical writer.

Post by b***@juno.com
And this quasi-Christianity is a very recent historical development. If
such a belief system qualifies as "Christianity"...... it only BARELY
does so on the most superficial level.
Christianity is not summarized by the idea that we should "be nice to
people."

Then why is the Golden Rule so exalted by the title 'golden'?

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - because if there are other Christians of the like of myself...that are
far more quiet I want them to know that they are not alone..that not all
Christians are a stereotype or right wing fundies...that we vary and we
thrive and we will not let the literalists hijack Jesus.
I'm not a herd follower and never have been..

Really? You certainly sound like a "herd follower" to me. And I am sure Bimms
and Loren -- who rarely agree with me on much -- will eagerly agree with me on
this: you _are_ a herd follower, you just choose to follow a different 'herd'
than we who accept the Nicene Creed. You follow the herd of people who cast
aspersions by calling people 'fundie'.

Post by B.G. Kent
..I don't buckle to peer
pressure and never have..

So you say, but it is really hard for me to believe you when you sink to using
that slur, that bigoted derogatory term, 'fundie'.

Yes, Bren, even the mere use of this term is bigoted. And yet you made such a
big stink out of Loren's alleged bigotry, and here you are using the word that
proves that you too are not pure of bigotry.