0. If necessary, use this space to explain any unique beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, ect.
In answering this questionaire, I am not representing any sect. I am only giving my own personal views. I don't completely agree or disagree with the doctrines of any particular church that I know of. Because the Bible is so big, it would not be practical for me to take this space to explain my beliefs on everything, so I will give three beliefs that are particular to me. I believe it is wrong for Christians to join the military (conscientious objector), I believe the rapture happens at the end of the tribulation (post tribulation rapture theory), and I believe that spiritual gifts did not necessarily cease (non-cessationist).
1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.
God's justice demands atonement for sin. This is explained in detail in Hebrews chapters nine and ten. In verse 22, it says, "without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness."
2. Did everyone who died before Jesus go to Hell? Justify your answer.
There are many different views about this between different churches. I've studied both sides of the argument, and this one makes the most sense to me.
Sheol and Hades are the same thing. Sheol is the Hebrew word, and Hades is the Greek word, and they both refer to the grave, or the abode of the dead, etc. Gehenna is a completely different thing. Gehenna was another name for the valley of Hinnon which was a literal place the Jews were familiar with. The confusion about hell comes from the fact that both of these words (sheol/hades and gehenna) are translated as hell, so people naturally think that sheol/hades and gehenna are the same thing. They think that every scripture talking about gehenna is also talking about sheol, and every scripture talking about sheol is also talking about gehenna, and the reason is because there is no distinction in most of the English tranlations - especially the King James Version. They are all translated "hell." In the Bible, whenever it talks about sheol/hades, it always refers to death or the grave (Revelation 6:8 for example). Whenever it talks about Gehenna, it refers to fire and everlasting torment, etc. Jesus talked about Gehenna more than anybody else in the Bible. It was a literal place in Israel where they used to burn dead bodies. I think when Jesus was talking about Gehenna, he was refering to the lake of fire meantioned in Revelation. The reason he called the lake of fire Gehenna, was so they would know what he was talking about. He was making sort of a comparison, you might say, between the literal Gehenna and the lake of fire, so people would understand what Jesus was talking about. We know that Gehenna and hades/sheol cannot be the same thing because in Revelation, it says that hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Therefore, I think to translate both of the words as "hell" can be theologically misleading. I always try to make that distinction because using the word "hell" just leads to confusion.
"No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave (Sheol)?" (Psalm 6:5)
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave (Sheol), where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." (Revelation 20:13,14) Because of this scripture, I do not believe that the popular concept of hell being a literal lake of fire is true because death and hades are being thrown into the lake of fire, and also because the Bible plainly states that the lake of fire is the second death. Death is not a tangible thing that it could literally be thrown anywhere, and neither is hades. Since hades represents the grave, and the lake of fire represents the second death, I believe this means that death is being destroyed as it says, "The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he 'has put everything under his feet.'" (1 Corinthians 15:26,27) Now why is there a distinction between death and Hades if the grave is synonymous with death? Because without death, there is no grave as it says, "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him." (Revelation 6:8) It makes good sense, doesn't it? It follows that you go to the grave after death. Also note that before death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, "death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them," (Revelation 20:13) which is talking about the resurrection.
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing." (Psalm 146:3,4)
"After he had said this, he went on to tell them, 'Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to wake him up.' His disciples replied, 'Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.' Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his desciples thought he meant natural sleep." (John 11:11,12)
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being (soul),' the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual." (1 Corinthians 15:44-46)
"According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (1 Thessalonians 4:15,17)
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
Because of all these scriptures and other scriptures I believe that when one dies, he remains in the grave until the resurrection. His spirit, which is his life, returns to God, and Jesus gives it back at the resurrection. I believe Jesus used Gehenna for the imagery meaning that those who would not enjoy eternal life would be destroyed as in the lake of fire which is the second death. It's all imagery. It means second and final death, eternal destruction. But this would not happen right after a person died, but rather after the resurrection and judgement. (see Revelation 20:11-15)
3. If a Catholic, justify the Inquisition and other persecutions of "heretics" throughout the centuries, concentrating on why the Pelagianists, the Priscillianists, and the Manichaeans were persecuted; if a Protestant, justify the witch trials and the way the Protestants constantly hunted down native Americans until there were so few that the government could simply take their land; if a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, justify the persecutions of the Old Believers after the reform of the seventeenth century.
There is no justification for Christians ever taking the lives of anybody. Their reasons for doing so were the same as the reasons for anybody killing in history. Though most of the early church did not believe in war, those who did participate in the military were strongly discouraged from it by most of the early Church leaders. As Tertullian said in 174 AD, "Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation (in the army), when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword, shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle, when it does not become him to even suit in law court? On the contrary, if a soldier gets converted, he must abandon the military immediately." There are several other quotes from early church leaders that say basically the same thing. The church didn't officially condone war until after the rule of Constantine when Christianity became the state religion. Compromising with the state, St. Augustine proposed a just war theory to justify Christians going to war under certain conditions. From that point on, the church fell further and further into apostasy as they entered the crusades, the inquisition, and eventually the witch hunts. So it's my observation that the church became corrupted as a result of the separation between church and state being disolved. It was not God or the Bible or origional Christian doctrine that created such a monster, but rather, it was the secular world's influence on the religion that made it such a monster. Yes, atheists, non-believers, and pagans played a part in corrupting the church until the church was so corrupted that it murdered so many people.
Christians today are well aware of how their behavior reflects on Christ. However, it's not logical to necessarily discredit a leader based on the misbehavior of those who claim to follow that leader. Take Martin Luther King for example. He believed strongly in peace and non-violent protest, yet many who were stirred by his message were moved to violence in his name. That doesn't mean Martin Luther King didn't have a good message. It simply means he had some misguided followers. Anybody can act in the name of whoever he names, but that doesn't make the one named guilty. If I kill in your name when you didn't condone it, that doesn't make you guilty. Christianity is not a bad religion simply because some misguided followers used religion as an excuse for their barbarism. It does not make God guilty for those who claimed to follow him if they killed in his name.
And even if he did condone the killing, it does not follow that he doesn't exist. For a person to deny God's existence because they don't like God is illogical. It should not be surprising that true religion became corrupted at some point because the very book we Christians derive our beliefs from has prophesied these things in advance.
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29,30)
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3)
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you." (2 Peter 2:1)
"For false Christs and prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible." (Matthew 24:24)
If anything, the corruption in Christianity vindicates the authentic version of it by fulfilling prophecy concerning it. Hopefully Christians won't repeat the violence of the past, but we should expect false teachings to continue and spread. As long as we love the truth enough to emerse ourselves in the knowledge of God which is revealed in scripture, we will not be decieved. Judge Christianity by the morals Jesus taught; not by the failures of the church in the past, because we don't expect you to follow a church, an organization, or a man-made philosophy. We only hope that you will follow the true Christ in a religion unpolluted by the world. The Bible says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27)
In the beginning, the government justified the confiscation of Indian land by appealing to what they called "manifest destiny." They believed it was their God-ordained destiny to take over that land. This is a rationalization one cannot find in the Bible. Therefore, Christianity should not be on trial for it, but rather, those who made this rationalization should. Rather than being critical of Christianity because of what people do, it makes more sense to be critical of people when they deviate from the Bible for their own selfish ambition. Besides, for the most part, the confiscation of Indian land had nothing to do with religion.
4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian.
5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not members of your particular sect.
6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).
The implication is that God is morally evil because he creates disaster (which is also called evil). What's interesting is that many of the same people who think God is evil because of this also think that a person who joins the military to serve his country and create evil is good for doing it. But in the context, good and evil are not opposites. The context is talking about moral good vs natural evil. God is not morally evil because he creates natural evil. People don't usually consider themselves morally depraved for wanting justice. So if the execution of justice includes creating evil, the person is still considered to be morally good without a contradiction. The truth is, God has a different authority in the universe than we do. The government is not morally evil because of punishing wrongdoers, but a citizen is committing a crime if he takes the law into his own hands. Likewise, God said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19) So it is not our place to execute judgment on our fellow man, but it is God's place.
The argument against the existence of a good God based on the problem of evil is self refuting. It attempts to hold God to an absolute moral standard and denies his existence because of failing to meet that standard. However, if God doesn't exist, then there are no objective moral standards. There would be no objective good or evil because morality would be relative to each person. Nobody could say that his or her morals were objectively better than anybody else's. Morality would be based on our feelings, and each person's morals would be based on his own opinion. The problem of evil would amount to asserting that you don't like God, and it would have no bearing on whether or not he exists. If you assume that there is some objective good that exists regardless of whether people believe in it or not, then God must exist, and he must be the objective standard by which we distinguish good from evil. Therefore, he could never be evil.
The problem of evil is not that God is bad. The problem of evil is that people are judging God based on their own standards for him rather than judging themselves by God's standards for them. They don't believe in God because he's not what they want him to be or think he should be. Some people think joining the military is good and noble while other people think joining the military is evil and shameful. Likewise, people judge God based on their own ideas of what is good and what is evil. But God is the author of the universe. He is the standard by which good and evil are determined. Objective moral standards exists because there is a constant by which to measure our morality, and that constant is God. We don't decide what moral truths are. We discover what they are.
God is all good even though he creates natural evil. As a matter of fact, his creating evil is a contribution to his goodness since justice is a good quality. If God is all powerful and all knowing, then it would be arrogant of us to judge him by our own personal opinions of what he should or shouldn't do. Surely the author and creator of the universe has wisdom that exceeds our understanding. Most children don't always understand why their parents punish them for things, and they can't understand why their parents demand certain things from them. Think how much more of a gap there is between our intellect and God's intellect than there is between a child's intellect and a parent's intellect! Though you may think it cliche, we do not always know the motivations behind God's actions, but we as Christians believe that his wisdom is greater than our's. Our approval and belief in God are not necessarily dependent on our understanding of him. You should believe God is good, not on the condition that he fits your mold, but because his goodness is transcendent by virtue of who he is.
7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe the idea that racism is morally acceptable.
It is impossible for two people to come to an agreement about morals when they derive their morals from different sources. We are on two different wave lengths. A Christian's morals are based on guidence from the Holy Spirit in the form of a conscience, and guidence from the Bible; whereas, an atheist's morals derive from society and their own reasoning. I'm not condoning racism here, I'm just making a point that what is right in one person's eyes are not necessarily right in another person's eyes. And as far as your NOTE is concerned, I'm sure that under no circumstances will you believe that God exists or that any of the answers to these questions are acceptable because you think differently than we do. So what's the point in making the note? If a person felt that racism was morally acceptable, then that would be his honest answer. Does that mean he shouldn't give it?
I see Mark 7:25-29 as a very unracist act on Jesus's part. I'm assuming the reason you call Jesus racist is because he hesitated to help the non-Jewish Greek woman. The Bible says, "God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." (Acts 10:34-35) Jesus went to the Jews first because they were the only people who worshipped the true God, and the Messiah had been promised to them. As soon as the Greek woman humbled herself and demonstrated faith in Jesus, Jesus met her request. It had nothing to do with race. It was a matter of faith. If you think Jesus was racist, you ought to read John 4:4-26. In verse 9, it says, "the Samaritan woman said to him, 'You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?' (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)" Also read the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:29-37.
8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.
The morals you accept are not necessarily the morals I accept, and my answers are not dependent on your acceptance of them. I'm not saying that I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable. However, saying that something is "clearly wrong," seems to imply that you believe objective moral values exist. If they exist, then surely they are not dependent on your opinion of what they are, but rather, it is for you to discover them and to adjust your values when you do.
The reasons for God making women in the position that he has doesn't have to do with morals, but with practicality. There has to be order in a household just as there has to be order in any team in order to maximize effectiveness. Men and women were created for different roles in the family. The man was created to be the leader, and the woman was created to be his helper. This does not mean that women are inferior or less important than men, just that their role in family is different. Women are not to be oppressed as you have suggested, but rather, the man is to respect and love her as Christ loved the church, and as her body is his, so is his body her's.
In verse 11 of 1 Cor 11, it says that men and women are not independent of each other. The married couple become one, and they have different roles God has assigned to them for the sake of unity and order. It is true that men have taken advantage of their superior position to women and abused them; however, this is not a Christian virtue.
God could've chosen the man or the woman to occupy the position of authority in the house, but according to 1 Tim 2:11-15, God decided that men would occupy the position of authority rather than women because (1) man was created first, and (2) Eve was the one who was initially decieved and ate the forbidden fruit.
Now that we have focused on the percieved negative aspects of the roles of women, let's not neglect the positive sides. Read Ephesians 5:25-33. In verse 25, it says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," and in Colossians 3:19, "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." (1 Peter 3:7) "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:26-29)
9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society.
1 Peter 2:18 does not condone slavery, but instead tells slaves how they should live with respect to their masters. You should have rather had me refute Colossians 4:1 where slavery apparently is condoned. It says, "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." So slavery is condoned; however, they are to be treated fairly. Also in Ephesians 6:9, it says, "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." I believe that slavery becomes oppressive only when it is forced slavery. There have been many cases in history of people selling themselves into slavery (see Deuteronomy 15:12) so they could feed themselves and their families. Without this provision, some people wouldn't have been able to have their basic needs met. They didn't have welfare. So these people should be treated as servants or employees and that is not morally incorrect. I also believe that "anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins," because the Holy Spirit "will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement," so I believe a person who goes against his conscience sins if not against the Spirit, then at least against himself. 1 Timothy 1:10 lists slave traders among those who do not conform to the sound doctrine of the glorious gospel of the blessed God.
10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says nothing about obeying unrighteous parents. Instead, it says to take the children to the elders. If the parents were in the wrong, then the elders could judge.
Proverbs 13:24 says that parents should discipline disobedient children. It does not say children should obey unrighteous parents.
Hebrews 12:7-8 says that we should endure hardship and discipline. Even if a parent is in the wrong, the child should still endure the discipline. This does not say that the child should obey his parents when his parents are wrong. There is much in the Bible instructing Christians to endure suffering for doing the right thing. It is a Christian virtue.
"Peter and the other apostles replied, 'We must obey God rather than men,'" (Acts 5:29), so I do not believe that children should submit to their parents' decisions when those decisions are clearly evil. I think the scriptures you had me refute hardly made your case. I think you would've made a better case had you had me refute Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 which says, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."
11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth until salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, couldn't he find a better way?
The reason most of us will not be saved is because most of us reject God. God does not force us into his kingdom, but as it says in John 12:32, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to myself." So everybody has an opportunity to be saved. Everybody is called, but only those who accept the calling are chosen for eternal life. There is a good illustration of mankind rejecting God as his king for the sake of wanting to rule himself in 1 Samuel 8 where Israel asks for a king. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) but that salvation is conditional upon us accepting it. Again, God has given us a choice. It just happens, that most people reject him. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends," (John 15:13) so no, I can't think of a better way for God to have shown us his love, and I can't think of a better reason for us to accept Christ than because of his love for us.
12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describe Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelations 20:15). Do not exceed 100 words.
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." (Matthew 12:31)
2 Thessalonians 1:9 uses the term "everlasting destruction" which when compared with Revelation 20:14 means second death, eternal death with no hope of another resurrection.
13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other.
"The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress." (Job 37:23) And in Matthew 9:26, it says, "all things are possible with God." God also said, "is anything too hard for the LORD?" (Genesis 18:14) If God considers mercy a just quality, then it makes good sense that justice and mercy go together. He's just in that he punishes sin, but he's merciful in that he sent his only son to die for your sins, and he gives you a lifetime of opportunity to repent.
14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.
There are many cases in the Bible where God allows evil forces to prevail for the sake of displaying his power. Examples include hardening Pharaoh's heart, and allowing Job to be persecuted so much. One other example is in John 9:1-4 where Jesus healed the blind man and his disciples asked him if he sinned or if his parents sinned because they thought he was blind because of sin. Jesus said, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." If demon posession was so common in Jesus' day this could very well explain it, but I'm not convinced that demon posession was all that common back then. Who is to say that deseases such as epilepsy and schizaphrenia are not caused by demons? Afterall, Job's skin desease was caused by the devil. There are still cases of demon possession reported these days.
15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality.
Humans are not a trinity in which the spirit, soul, and body are distinct persons with individual minds. Rather, the spirit, soul, and body are aspects of the same person. I believe that all of our thinking takes place in our brain which is a physical thing. I believe that the soul is not a seperate entity from our physical selves, and I do not think it is correct to say that the personality resides in the soul as if the soul were a serperate entity from our minds. To make a separation between a person and his soul is to make a categorical mistake. I believe that living creatures are souls. I do believe that the spiritual world can influence what goes on in the brain; however, when those things do go on, they go on in the brain which is a physical thing. Drugs effect the brain, and if the brain is damaged, the personality is altered.
16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." (Isaiah 65:17)
17. What is Heaven like?
Look up at night, and you will see the heavens. Use a telescope to get a better look. When the Bible mentions heaven, it's usually talking about the sky or the entire cosmos. Revelation 4 describes God's throne room, but I believe most of this is symbolic. When most Christians think about heaven, they are thinking about the description of the Holy City, the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:9-27 with the pearly gates and stuff, but as it says in verses 2 and 10, the city comes down out of heaven and onto earth, so this is not a description of heaven. There is only one other place that talks about what heaven is like. It's in Galatians 12 where Paul is talking about a guy he knew who was caught up into the third heaven, but Paul doesn't know whether he was in the body or out of the body. In my opinion, Paul is saying he doesn't know whether this guy was dreaming it or if it really happened. All it says, is that the guy heard and saw unexpressible things that men aren't permitted to tell.
18. What is Hell like?
It depends on whether you're thinking of Sheol/Hades or Gehenna. See question # 2.
19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12) So we are not guilty because we were born guilty. We are guilty "because all sinned." What we inherited from our parents wasn't guilt, but the inclination to sin. You shouldn't be eternally tortured for anything. You should accept forgiveness instead. You are not going to be condemned for what Adam and Eve did, but for what you do. The reason we are born stained because we were conceived sexually is because our parents are stained. We inherit the inclination to sin from our parents. You are not going to be punished for something your parents did.
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of his father, nor will the father share the guilt of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (Ezekiel 18:20)
20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in # 19.
We are not saved because we are baptized. We are baptized because we are saved. Baptize literally means to wash. To be baptized into something means to become part of it. The baptism of the Holy Spirit washes our sins away, makes us clean, and makes us part of the body of Christ (see 1 Cor 12:13). "This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21) So it is not the symbolic act of baptism that saves you, but rather what that symbolic act represents that saves you - the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the washing away of our sins so that we have a "good conscience toward God." When we are baptized into the name of Jesus with water, we are publically acknowledging that we are his, that we have died to and buried our sinful selves as he died on the cross for our sins, and we are raised as new creatures in Christ (i.e. made alive in the spirit) as he was resurrected. Our real spiritual baptism happens now, but our resurrection, which is the redemption of our bodies, is in the future (see Romans 8:11,18-25). Until then, "[God] has given us the Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come," (1 Cor 5:5) - the resurrection.
21. If your God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment."
Putting that tree in the garden is no more entrapment then opening a gun store. The Bible never says why God put that tree in the garden, but since he did, we know that there was a reason. Our not knowing the reason has no bearing on whether that reason exists or not. The rest of this is just my opinion. Since the Bible doesn't explicitely say, I can only speculate. I think it was only for the sake of giving Adam and Eve a choice. God wanted people to worship him out of love, and not because they had no other choice.
I'm sure somebody could come up with a hundred reasons why God would put that tree there, but it definitely wasn't to tempt Adam and Eve. "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." (James 1:13)
22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4.
Matthew 19:12 says that one who can accept being single should accept it. The reason is found in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 where it says that a married person is concerned about the things of this world and how he can please his spouse, whereas a single person can be more fully devoted to God.
In 1 Corinthians 7:3, it says, "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband." That doesn't sound to me like sex is considered bad. But Paul goes on to say basically that if you don't need companionship and sex, it's better not to marry so you can be more devoted to God. Sex isn't bad. It's just that singularity is better. That's the whole point of these scriptures.
Galatians 5:17 isn't talking about sex. It's talking about how human nature has a tendency to sin which is contrary to the Spirit. The Spirit and the flesh are in conflict with each other. We want to do things that we shouldn't do.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 does not condemn sex, but rather it condemns sexual immorality. Sex between a married couple is not immoral. Sex with animals, with same sex, with brothers and sisters, and with multiple partners are examples of sexual immorality.
James 1:14-15 simply says that people are tempted, sin, and die. It doesn't say anything about sex.
Matthew 24:38 does not condemn the life style of these people. The point here is that people lived their lives just like nothing was going to happen, and then one day something did happen. Luke 17:27 says the same thing.
Revelation 14:4 is translated differently in different Bibles. Most of them don't use the word "virgin," but according to the Greek, "virgin" is the literal translation, and the KJV translates it as virgin. It says, "These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins." It's not saying that if they were NOT virgins that they WOULD be defiled with women. It's saying, in other words, "How could a virgin be defiled with a woman?" It mentions that they are virgins to emphasize the impossibility of them ever commiting a sexual sin. There is nothing sexually immoral about having sexual relations within the context of marriage. These 144,000 kept themselves single for the sake of being especially devoted to God as it says in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35. The reason other translations don't translate it as "virgin," is because in the context, the word for virgin seems to be used figuratively to mean purity. In 2 Corinthians 11:2, it says, "I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him." In the context, it is clear that Paul doesn't mean they are literally virgins. You see the Church, or the body of all believers, is also figuratively called the bride of Christ. It means we will be united with him. In this context, "virgin" means we will be pure.
23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28.
"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this "coming" he promised?'...But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:3-4, 8-9)
24.Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.
Over a period of about 4000 years, God was revealing himself to various people at various times so that they could be witnesses and so that we might have faith based on their testimony. In Jewish law, the witness of three people was enough to varify a matter, but there are over 40 writers of the Bible. God chose particular people for whatever reason he had to show them what he could do so they would testify about him. Not only do we have the testimony of these people to go on, but we also have convincing prophesy and fulfillment which convinces us that the prophesies are true. In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 God said, "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Israel had a lot of people who called themselves prophets, but relatively few of them made the press. All of these Bible prophets were persecuted by their own people for their prophesies, and yet the persecuters accepted their prophesies as scriptures because they passed the Moses test. If I got into the specifics of these prophesies, I might exceed my 100 word limit.
Despite many of the physical miracles the apostles saw, they continued to doubt. Even when Jesus was walking on water and called Peter to walk out there and meet him, Peter was doing fine until he started to doubt, and then he sunk until Jesus caught him. That's in Matthew 14:28-30. The apostles continued to doubt right up until they saw Jesus after he had been resurrected. That's where the doubting Thomas thing came from. Thomas wouldn't believe his companions that they had seen Jesus until he put his fingers in his side and on the scars on his hand. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
In Matthew 11:21-24, Jesus said, "Woe to you Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." So God holds us each acountable for what we have experienced, heard, and seen. The apostles had no advantage over us because they had seen miracles. Since they saw miracles, more was expected of them in the way of faith.
No amount of evidence will convince you until you are convicted. You can read the Bible until you are blue in the face trying to convince yourself that it's all true, but until you make it part of your life, you're never going to see the truth in it. You have to put action to your quest for truth. Jesus said, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (John 7:17) A Christian can lead a person to Christ, but only the Holy Spirit can make him drink.
25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent?
At the end of John, it says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written," (John 21:25) so since there were so many things Jesus did, the authors didn't write down all of them. Some of the authors wrote down what other authors didn't. And I doubt if they were too terribly worried about whether Mary was standing at the entrance of the tomb or standing ten feet away or facing one way or facing another when she saw Jesus or the angels. These books were written many years after Jesus, and though the messages and major events are all the same, the details of events differ. For the most part, they are consistent, but there are a lot of details like when Jesus said what at different times that are not consistent. If the four gospels were identical, there would be no reason to think that they were independent accounts. The fact that they differ gives support of the fact that they are independent accounts. The reason many of Jesus' words are identical is probably because his sayings were memorized and not because everybody was consulting the same source. The sermon on the mount was probably not intended to be something that actually happened like that, and unless there was a court reporter, the words of Jesus were not word for word, but were probably a paraphrase from all that Jesus had taught. Matthew's purpose seemed to be to get across the teachings of Jesus, whereas John's objective was to convince the reader that Jesus was the Messiah, and Luke's objective was to get everything in chronological order; therefore they all three wrote about different teachings and events in Jesus' life. They were probably not too terribly worried if they got something out of order or if Jesus said exactly what they said he said at exactly the place he said it, and so forth. They wrote as best as information allowed them, and since they were all associated with the original apostles, these books are probably very accurate. The book of John was more than likely written by the apostle John. When I look back on my own life, I don't remember exactly if something happened before something else, but I do remember most of my life and the basics, and enough that is important. The fact that each gospel is not exactly like the other gospels does not bother me. If my brother and sister and I wrote about our childhoods, there would probably be differences just as in these gospels, but we know basically what happened, and what our daddy believed and what he taught us and so forth.
26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, explain why you are still using the Catholic Bible, which was formalized by a vote among (supposedly divinely inspired) cardinals and bishops in the fourth century CE, when you disagree with the idea that the Pope, who is higher in the Catholic hierarchy, is divinely inspired; if a Catholic, explain why your church accepts the canonical Bible while rejecting the Apocrypha (do not use the "divinely inspired" argument: Because I am not religious, I will not be able to accept it).
Even if the Bible is not inspired, it is the only record we have of what went on in the life and times of Jesus. If we did not have it we would be even more lost than we are now assuming it is full of errors. But I believe those Cardinals gave a lot of thought and prayer to their considerations. In Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan, he showed that a person is not intrinsically wrong because of who he is, but he is right or wrong based on what he does. So just because I'm not Catholic, that doesn't mean I think everything the Catholics do and/or believe is wrong. I believe they could've been guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision. I believe every sincere Christian is guided by the Holy Spirit. The books that were chosen to be canonical were chosen on the basis of certain criteria, so the church doesn't lean on these books on the basis that the decision was devinely inspired. That's why protestants accept almost all of the books that were chosen.
27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat?
If we didn't at least have ants and worms and scavengers that ate meat, how would a body decompose? Nature does a pretty good job of keeping itself in balance with population and food for everything except where man interferes. I think God was considering the balance of nature in his whole plan when he made carnivors. I do not think it's wrong that there are things in this world that will eat us. Afterall, cars are more dangerous than lions, tigers, and bears, so why did we create cars?
When God creates the new world, "the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." (Isaiah 65:25) This is how God originally meant for man to live on earth, but those conditions changed when man got kicked out of the Garden of Eden as a result of his sin.
28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites?
Again, the whole balance of nature thing. Also it could've been among the consequences of getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden just like living by the sweat of our brow was. See question # 27.
29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.
Obviously, it is free will because you are apparently being threatened and are still refusing to worship him. Half the non-Christians I talk to reject Christianity because of the threats, so there's free will in action for you. I do not believe the threat of hell is for the purpose of getting people to worship God. I believe damnation is simply a result of us rejecting God. If we reject God, what place do we have in his kingdom? Should he force us into his kingdom? Wouldn't that be a violation of free will?
30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "i will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.
The only people God hardens are those who are already living in rebellion to him. He merely hardens them for the sake of displaying his power so that people will believe in him, or to use them as his instrument of wrath against other rebellious people. (see question # 14) Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19:11) Since Pilate's authority was given to him from God, Pilate was not as guilty as the ones who turned Jesus in even though Pilate was the one who actually sentenced Jesus to death. I also believe that "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32)
31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.
In John 17:12 and in Acts 1:16, it is shown that Judas was doomed so that Scripture would be fulfilled. Prophesy is not a predetermination of the future, but only a prediction of the future. God did not make Judas betray Jesus. He just knew Judas would betray Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus by his own free will.
32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see # 31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?
Judas was not willing to go to hell. His motivation was not to sacrifice himself for mankind. His motivation was 30 peices of silver. Judas went to hell only for his own sins, not for humanity. Jesus, who was sinless, died for the sins of everybody else. Since Judas is not the Messiah, we should not be worshipping him.
33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known liars? (See Romans 3:7)
I don't see how Romans 3:7 is relevent to the question for two reasons: (1) Paul was not a gospel writer, and (2) Paul is making an analogy, not calling himself a liar. Those who were spreading the gospel were thought to be liars by those who did not believe their message. Clearly if somebody says something that you don't believe, you think they are lying - especially if they are claiming to be witnesses of it themselves. Christianity had a lot of enemies in those days who were trying to thwart the efforts of the apostles. It's just slander.
The entire Christian faith depends on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, which the apostles claim to have been eye witnesses of. Paul wrote, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:14,17-19) We can be sure they were telling the truth because they had nothing to gain and everything to lose by preaching the Jesus rose from the dead. Many people would be willing to die for what they believe is true, but nobody would die for what he knew was a lie. So the apostles had to have at least believed what they were saying, and since they were claiming to be eye witnesses of it, then it must've been true. Their faith was based on what they witnessed themselves, and not simply a belief in an idea that isn't verifiable.
The first conspiracy theory about Jesus' resurrection was that the disciples stole the body. (see Matthew 28:11-15) So even the enemies of Jesus admited to the empty tomb. But if the disciples did steal the body, then they would know that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Since Christianity depends on the resurrection, it's not likely they would stake their lives on it knowing it wasn't true. Most of the apostles suffered martyrdom before the first Jewish revolt. People may die for what they believe to be true, but people don't die for what they know to be a lie.
34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
God doesn't create homosexuals. He creates people, and people are born with the tendency to sin because they inherited it from Adam and Eve. Being born with the tendency to sin does not excuse sin. It doesn't matter how you got to be gay. What matters is that you don't give in to it. I don't know whether people are born gay or choose to be gay or just become gay by accident, but I don't think that matters. I mean if you think about it, we all have a sinful nature. We were born predisposed to sin. That doesn't exuse our sin. Just because we were born with the tendency to sin doesn't make it okay for us to indulge in it. So even if a person were born gay, that doesn't make it okay for him to indulge in it. Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin. Everybody is tempted to sin throughout their lives.
35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to interced in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead." (Deuteronomy 18:10-11) When we pray, we are asking the only God of the universe to do something for us. Spell casting involves asking supernatural forces other than God to do something. "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain in the ass because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE.
It wasn't the Romans that were so bothered by Jesus. It was the Jewish leaders who felt threatened by him. Pilate tried to release Jesus, and it was the Jewish leaders who were pushing for his crucifixion.
I don't know what writings you are refering to that were not written until the third century CE. Every book in the new testament, including the gospels, was written in the first century CE. Some of the epistles were written within 15-20 years of Jesus' death.
37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see # 36) was even ever born.
Jesus' life was well-documented in the new testament which I believe to be historically accurate, and in 1 Corinthians, we have oral traditions about Jesus that date to within 5 years after his death (See 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 15:3-8). Josephus, Tacitus, and the Jewish leaders of the time also wrote about Jesus. Christianity was being spread during the lifetime of the people who lived when Jesus supposedly lived, it began in Jerusalem where Jesus died, and nobody during that time questioned his existence - not even enemies of Christianity. The life of Jesus is documented better than the life of most historical figures of his time and earlier. There are more copies of the New Testament than any other works of antiquity, and they date closer to the events they tell about than any other work of antiquity. If there are any credible scholars who doubt Jesus' existence, they are few and far between. See question #33.
38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word.
"Christ" is the Greek word literally meaning "poured upon," or "anointed." Pagans may have had rituals that involved anointing, but in Jewish and Christian thought, one who was anointed was a king. Anointing was the ceremony used to inaugurate a king (See 1 Samuel 10:1 and 15:1). All kings were called anointed ones. Jesus was called Christ because the Christ was prophesied to sit on the throne of David.
39. Explain why Jesus, who was anti-Gentile (see Mark 7:25-29) and anti-sex (see Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:12), would want to be anointed with oil in a pagan sexual rite after his death (see your definition for # 38).
The anointing that made Jesus the "Anointed One" was not an anointing with oil or anything temporal. It was an anointing of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not make any requests concerning his burial. The procedure used to bury Jesus was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. (see John 19:40) Also, Jesus was not anti-sex (see question #22), and he was not anti-Gentile (see question #7).
40. In light of Matthew 10:34, explain why Jesus is called Prince of Peace.
The reason Jesus said he did not come to bring peace was because of the distinction he was making between worldly people and godly people. There has always been a big wall between Christians and non-Christians. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace because he taught his followers to seek peace and pursue it. He said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) He also said, "Those who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52) Matthew 10:34 is in reference to the opposition Christianity would face from the rest of the world, and how there would always be enmity between Christians and non-Christians. This is clear when you read the scripture in the context.
41. The name "Jesus" has been anglicized. What was the original (Hebrew) name of Jesus? Where did you get this information? This is a bonus question.
Yeshu'a. My girlfriend told me this.
42. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christs, particularaly Herakles, Dionysios, and Asklepios?
I don't really think their lives are all that similar. The only similarity between Herakles and Jesus I know of is that Herakles was the son of Zeus and Jesus was the son of God. Besides that, Herakles had a wife and children which is nothing like Jesus' life.
Asklepios was the Greco-Roman god of medicine who was struck down by Zeus with a thunderbolt because Zeus was afraid that if Asklepios went around healing everybody that he would eventually render all men immortal. You could draw some parallels between that and Jesus' life because Jesus healed people and promised a resurrection to immortality, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Other than that, I know of no similarities between them.
If you have a really good imagination, you can draw some striking paralells between Dionysus and Jesus. They both had a god for a father and a mortal for a mother. Dionysus was a god of wine, and Jesus once turned water into wine. According to one story, Dionysus died in the winter and was reborn in the spring. In some versions, he was resurrected. So he also came to represent the seasons by dying every winter and being reborn every spring. Jesus died and was resurrected three days later.
What is even more striking than the similarities between Jesus's life and the life of these mythical figures is the similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. The names of Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters. Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. Both their wives lost their children while living in the White House. Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. Both were shot in the head. Both were shot in the presence of their wives. The Secretary of each President warned them not to go to the theater and to Dallas, respectively. Lincoln's Secretary was named Kennedy. Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln. Both were assassinated by southerners. Both were succeeded by southerners. Both successors were named Johnson. Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908. John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939. Both assassins were known by their three names. Both names comprise fifteen letters. Booth ran from a theater and was captured in a warehouse. Oswald ran from a warehouse and was captured in a theater. Booth and Oswald were both assassinated before their trials. With all these similarities, you'd think either Kennedy or Lincoln or both were mythological, and the history we know about them is fictitious.
What does all this mean? Absolutely nothing. The belief in resurrection comes from the old testament, well before the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, and well before the mystery cults. Most of the events in Jesus' life, including his resurrection, were prophesied in the old testament, so any attempt to discredit the Christian message because the lives of some Greek mythological characters, in some vague way, resemble the life of Jesus is obsurd. Most of the stories revolving around the mystery cults were written after the gospels, so if there was any borrowing, it was on the part of the mystery cults, not on the part of Christianity.
43. If your god requires that people believe in him and follow his orders through their own free will, why do Christians push their view on public policy?
Because Jesus said, "You are the salt of the earth." (Matthew 5:13) We believe that morals are absolute and that it is in the best interest for all people everywhere to conform to the standards God has set down for us. America is under a democracy where a person has a right to vote and have a say in government regardless of whatever religious influences might be swaying his opinions. Government would not function if it did not recognize certain moral absolutes, such as "thou shalt not kill." The government has to enforce these laws whether people agree with them or not. Since the government cannot be neutral about a lot of situations, Christians try to have some influence on public policy. Whatever laws get passed affect us too.
44. Explain why being a good Christian requires you to push your beliefs on others, If you do not believe that you have to push your views on others (no matter how much this annoys them), explain why you do not believe this despite the fact that the New Testament seems to suggest that you must do this to get to Heaven (for instance, in Matthew 28:19-20)
I do not believe Matthew 28:19-20 or any other scriptures urging Christians to spread the Word requires that they be pushy about it or that you can't go to Heaven if you don't do it. According to the teachings of the Bible, it is the Holy Spirit who does the converting. (see Matthew 16:16-17) All we can do is give the information to whoever is willing to hear it. When we witness to somebody who does not want to hear it, we are to go about our way. "If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." (Matthew 10:13-14) "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6) I believe this is saying that you shouldn't waste your time with people who are already convinced, and whose only objective is to debunk your religion or insult you.
45. Explain why spreading the "truth of Christ" requires you to spread lies about other religions, such as the idea that Wiccans (so-called "white witches") worship the Christian devil. (Incidentally, they don't, and this rumer has been persistently spread by Christians since the second century CE).
Christians have misconceptions about other religions just as this questionnaire demonstrates that others have misconceptions about us. Spreading the truth about Christ does not require spreading lies. On the contrary, lying is a sin, and Christians aren't supposed to do it. This rumor got started as a result of the pagan influence on the church. The popular picture of the devil with his red skin, horns, and pitchfork was adopted by Christians from a conglomerate of various pagan gods. So naturally, the Christians thought Wiccans were devil worshippers. Also, there are some devil worshippers who call themselves Wiccans even though other Wiccans don't acknowledge them.
We are to expose false religion because we believe that the only way to the Father is through the Son (John 14:6). The Bible tells us that an accurate knowledge of the truth is important to protect people from false teachings and such because there will be many false teachers and false prophets who will distort the truth. "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16) It is important that we recognize these false teachings so we won't be deceived, and the only way to recognize them is to have an accurate knowledge of the truth. Christians expose the falseness of other religions in order to be able to recognize them, and thus not be deceived. (see Matthew 24:24; John 17:3; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Ephesians 6:17; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 1:9 and 2:1; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 4:1-3)
46. At no point in the four Gospels did Jesus claim to be the son of your god. (He said "son of man" quite frequently, and at one point referred to himself as "a son of god," but that was a common Hebrew expression at the time. Someone who was "a son of god" was a Jew. This reflected the Israelites' belief that they were the chosen people of your god. (See Job 1:6) Why then, do you believe that Jesus was divine? If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then why do you call yourself a Christian?
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [talking about himself] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
"The woman said, 'I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.' Then Jesus declared, 'I who speak to you am he.'" (John 4:25-26)
"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'" (Matthew 28:18)
"Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:16-17)
47. Given the fact that Jesus did not say anythng original (the Golden Rule and the "turn the other cheek" idea were stolen from Buddhism; and the Beatitudes were common in the Jewish devotional literature at the time), why do you see Jesus as such a great thinker/philospher/ethicist?
The golden rule and the turn the other cheek were not the only things Jesus taught. The gospels are full of other things Jesus taught, and I think his wisdom and insight is amazing. Also, if everybody had the same wisdom, doesn't it stand to reason that their philosophies would be very similar? There are many truths out there, and I believe wisdom is measured not in being able to come up with an original idea, but rather in being able to recognize those truths. If those truths are absolute, then it stands to reason that more than one person will recognize them. Jesus didn't teach new philosophies so much as he cleared up old ones.
48. When Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," why do you suppose that most christians fight for their rights? To put it another way, why don't we, as a country of 85% Christians, let the government abuse us?
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) Christians believe in submitting to the authority of the government over us (Romans 13:1), but that doesn't mean we won't plead our case for the sake of justice. We don't defend ourselves with sticks and stones, but with words. See # 3.
49. Why are so many Christian holidays on the same day as pagan holidays? Couldn't the early church fathers have converted pagans only by appealing to their reasons and/or faith if Christianity is the true religon?
People believe all kinds of contradictory things, so clearly, a thing being true does not guarantee that people will believe in it. Pagan holidays were adapted into Christian holidays by the church for several reasons. It was partly because of pagan influences on the church, partly to avoid persecution, and partly just to have a Christian alternative to an otherwise pagan holiday.
Only the Holy Spirit can convict a person. All we can do is lead a person to the truth. There have been and still are many well-meaning Christians who do strange things to try to coherse people into accepting Christ. In the past, they have even resorted to physical violence to try to coherse people. Christians are not perfect people, but Jesus was perfect, and we should strive to live by his example.
50. Explain how your god can be "just and merciful" in light of Exodus 20:5.
Exodus 20:5 says that God visits the sins of the fathers on their children to the fourth and fifth generation of those who hate him. All this means is that the children will reap what their parents sowed. We see this happening all around us today. For example, alcoholic parents tend to have alcoholic children, abusive parents raise abusive children, and divorced parents raise children who grow up and get divorced. Children tend to pick up on the bad habits of their parents, so the parents' sins are visited upon their children. A Biblical example is when Solomon commited idolatry, and God took the throne away from his son. It was Solomon who lost the throne, and his son reaped the result because he couldn't inherit the throne from Solomon. This scriptures does not mean that children will inherit the guilt of their parents' sins, because if it did, it would contradict Ezekiel 18:20 which says, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of his father, nor will the father share the guilt of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (see question #19)
51. Do you believe that the Old Testament should be accepted as part of the Christian theology? If so, explain how you can worship such a cruel, sadistic asshole (see Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5, etc.); if not, explain how you can believe that Jesus is the promised savior sent by your god without the messianic prophecies and the ruling rights of the line of David, both of which are in the Old Testament in books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Psalms, etc. (as apposed to, say, believing that Jesus was an irritating nut wandering around saying things that people didn't like much).
Yes, I believe the Old Testament should be accepted as part of Christian theology. I don't judge God because I don't feel that it's my place, and I don't feel that I'm competent to judge him. I worship God because he loves me, and he's demonstrated his love for me sending his son to die for me and by providing me with everything I need.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
All of the evil God created for people throughout the Bible was in punishment for their wickedness. (see Deuteronomy 9:4-6)
52. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24)
Elisha was God's representative. Insulting Elisha was like insulting God, and God probably took it personally. Furthermore, it was Elisha who called the bear, and not God. It's just that God had already given Elisha power to do these things.
53. If prostitution is wrong, why are there so many examples of it in Genesis? (For instance, Gen 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters to a mob so that his guests can avoid gang rape).
Not only are there many examples of prostitution, but there are many examples of idolatry, hate, murder, lying, stealing, and all kinds of mean nast ugly things; however, none of these things are condoned. Lot was already being disobedient to God because God told him several times to leave that town, but Lot didn't do it, so Lot is not always a model for us of what is right.
54. What is the sin that people committed that is so incredibly bad that your god had to become flesh and die to correct?
Jesus didn't die for any one sin. Jesus died for ever sin that every man commits. All of these sins are in rebellion to God, and Jesus' death made peace between us and God. (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:14-18)
55. Are all members of other faiths bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answers with quotes from the Bible."
"No one is good - except God alone." (Mark 10:18)
"There is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:3)
"If you were blind you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilty remains." (John 9:41)
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:47-48)
"No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin." (John 15:22)
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15)
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
"They perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved. God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)
56. Are all atheists/agnostics/humanists bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answers with quotes from the Bible.
57. What was your motive in proselytizing to me?
I was not proselytizing you. I heard about this questionaire from somebody else, and looked for it out of curiosity, and then got interested enough in it to answer it and put it on my web page.
58. Where is Heaven?
The heavens encompass all of space. The kingdom of Heaven encompasses all who do God's will. "Your kingdom come; your will be done." (Matthew 6:10) "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within (among) you." (Luke 17:20-21)
59. Where is Hell?
60. Why don't animals go to heaven or hell when they die? What makes us so special?
"Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath (spirit); man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21)
"So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:31)
61. Why does Satan try to get peoples' souls?
I think Satan's main objective is to ruin God's creation to spite God. He isn't interested in getting people's souls. He's only interested in getting people to reject God because he wants to be worshipped. In Revelation chapter 12, it shows that Satan lost his place in heaven. He was hurled down to the earth and was "filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." (Revelation 12:12) "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Revelation 12:17)
62. Once Satan has someone's soul, what does he do with it?
Satan doesn't get people's souls. When he wins people over, the people become his servants, somtimes disguised as servants of righteousness, and they are instrumental in accomplishing Satan's objective of drawing people away from the truth, and away from God. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
63. Is your god perfect? Justify your answer.
Yes, God is perfect because he is the only self-existing entity in the universe and therefore defines perfection. "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) It does not say to be perfect as you think things should be, rather to be perfect as God is perfect. Everybody seems to have a different opinion of what perfection is, but God sets the standard.
64. Where does our soul stay while we are alive?
We are our soul. A soul is a living being. "And the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being (soul)." (Genesis 2:7)
65. Explain how you can believe in Satan when your faith is directly descended from the Jewish faith, when the Jews did not even believe in Satan until they absorbed the Egyptian god Set while they were captives in Egypt.
There is nothing in the Bible or secular history to support the claim that Jews got the idea of Satan from Set while they were in Egypt. Secular history has not even confirmed that the Jews were ever even in Egypt, much less that they adopted their idea of Satan from them. Some secular historians believe the Jews got their ideas about Satan while there were in exile under the Babylonian and Syrian empires. We believe the serpent in Genesis was Satan, so the idea of Satan goes back to the beginning. "The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9; see also Revelation 20:2)
66. Why do evil people often prosper? Justify your answer.
Good and evil people often prosper because of either hard work, circumstances, inheritances, intelligence, and/or opportunity. "In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness." (Ecclesiastes 7:15) "I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happened to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11)
67. Why do good people so often fail to prosper? Justify your answer.
68. When the end of the world comes, will your god raise our actual bodies, or just our souls? Explain.
"But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another, and star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being (soul)'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed -- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'" (1 Corinthians 15:35-54)
69. Explain why your god lets airplanes with sinless infants on board crash.
I do not believe that God micromanages our lives; however, death entered the world because of sin. Since these infants never had the opportunity to sin, they're much better off than the rest of us. "A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth." (Ecclesiastes 7:1) "Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope." (1 Thessalonians 4:13) "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21)
70. What is sin exactly?
"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3: 4)
"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it sins." (James 4:17)
71. If Jesus is perfect, justify the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:17-19, Mark 11:14-20)
When we say Jesus was a perfect man, we mean that he never sinned. I can't imagine what sin you think Jesus commited in the story surrounding the fig tree.
72. Explain why Christians have harassed Wiccans ("white witches") for almost two thousand years now, when the central rule of the Wiccan ethical system is "an it harm no one, do what thou wilt."
Christians did not harm Wiccans because of this ethic. They harmed Wiccans because of Exodus 22:18 which says, "Do not allow a sorceress to live." This was the law the Jews used to govern themselvs. Since then, God has established man-made government and Christians no longer have the authority to judge and execute. Also since Christ's kingdom is not of this world, it is not a Christian's place to kill for any reason.
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) This shows that Christians should not fight for a kingdom of this world since they are not of this world but are aliens and strangers in this world.
"I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world." (John 17:14)
"For though we live in the world we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)
"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippans 3:20)
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires which war against your soul." (1 Peter 2:11)
Jesus changed the true follower's role in the world when he said, "you have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)
Jehovah used Israel as his executioner and gave them the authority to judge. They went to war because they were under the direct rule of God. God no longer sends his followers to war. God has delegated the authority to rule and to judge and execute to man-made governments, as it says in Romans 13:4, "for he [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing." The Jewish law was for them like the Constitution and ferderal law is for us.
73. Explain why Christians (yes, that includes all branches of Christianity) have spread the lie that Jews put Jesus to death when, in actuality, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death. (For a good example of New Testament anti-semetism, see 1 Thessalonians 2:15)
"They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a first born son." (Zechariah 12:10)
"Pilate said, 'It was your chief priests who handed you over to me.'" (John 18:35)
"Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, 'Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.' When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, 'Here is the man!' As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, 'Crucify! Crucify!' But Pilate answered, 'You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.' The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.' When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. 'Where do you come from?' he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said. 'Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.' From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, 'If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king apposes Caesar.' When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. 'Here is your king,' Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, 'Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!'" (John 19:4-15)
"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man's blood,' he said. 'It is your reponsibility!' All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matthew 27:24-25) For this reason, Christians claim the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death even though it was actually the Romans who did it. It is not anti-semetic to accuse the Jews of a wrong doing. Afterall, their own scriptures accuse them of doing many bad things. The word Israel means "he struggles with God." Throughout the old testament, Israel was struggling with God and was constantly disobeying him. So it is not anti-semetic to take note of this.
On the contrary, the true Christian is not to be anti-semetic. "This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths." (Zachariah 14:12) For a good example of pro-semetism, read Romans 11. 1 Thessalonians 2:15 states a truth about the Jews. It isn't anti-semetic.
74. Explain why your god created humans as imperfect, then set his standards so high that no one could possibly live up to them, then punishes us for not living up to his standards. Doesn't this also constitute "entrapment"?
Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil, they were completely innocent. The temptation to eat the fruit was that Adam and Eve wanted to establish what is good and evil for themselves so they could be "like God knowing good and evil," and as a result they did evil just as all men and women do evil. So we inherit the tendency to sin as a result of Adam and Eve eating that fruit. We continue to reject God's standards for good and evil in favour of our own standards. The law was given to show what was required to be perfect. Humans are incapable of this kind of perfection. God did not make a law based on what they could do, but based on what they should do, because that law would've fallen short of perfection otherwise. What if our own government set the standards of law based on our abilities? That would be crazy. Then we'd be excusing kleptomaniacs and people with all kinds of mental deseases that cause them to commit terrible crimes. We all have a sin nature; some people are just especially predisposed to commit certain kinds of sins. Since man is incapable of keeping this perfect law, God has provided a means for our salvation though the sacrifice of his Son. If we accept his salvation, and make him our Lord, and turn from our evil ways, we don't have to suffer an adverse judgement for our shortcomings.
75. If we are created in your god's image and likeness (Gen 1:27), how can we also be imperfect?
Man was created in the image of God but became scared after the Garden of Eden incident. Jesus was of devine origin and was the perfect image of God. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15) "And just as we have born the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:49)
76. Why was it OK for the ancient Israelites to sacrifice animals to their god, while it is wrong for modern religions to sacrifice animals to their gods? Justify your answer.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) Therefore, nobody should sacrifice to any other god than Jehovah, and people are no longer required to offer animal sacrifices to Jehovah because "we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)
77. Why would your god confuse people? (See 1 Sam 7:10 and Gen 11:9). Isn't life confusing enough already?
In 1 Samuel 7:10, God threw the Philistines into a panic so that the Israelites could defeat them. God always fought their battles for them as long as they were obedient to him.
Genesis 11:1-9 is about the tower of Babel and how God confused the languages and scattered the people. These people built this tower so they could make a name for themselves and not be scattered over the whole earth. God wanted man to "fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:28) Since it was possible for these people to accomplish what they were wanting to accomplish, God confused their languages and scattered them because he still wanted them to fill the earth. Now, since man has filled the earth, God is allowing him to progress technologically, and for the language barriers to come down.
78. Why would your god cause blindness, deafness, and dumbness? (See Ex 4:11)
In John 9:1-4, there is a story of a man born blind, and Jesus said, "this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." In Exodus 4:11, God told Moses that he determines if a person is deaf or mute to give Moses confidence that he could speak to Pharoah.
79. Why would your god want to damn people by making them believe false things? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).
These people damned themselves because they refused to believe the truth, and they delighted in wickedness. Now when Jesus returns, many people have claimed that at that point, they would turn their life over to him. God sends this delusion so that this won't happen, and people will be condemned who up until that point had delighted in wickedness and falsehood. At the end, there will be a point where God will "let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy." (Revelation 22:11) So we need to decide today who we will serve, because at some point, it will be too late. "Now brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief." (1 Thessalonians 5:3-4) These people are not in darkness because they delighted in truth and had a knowledge of God. So we also need to have a knowledge of God to prevent us from being misled by the false teachings and counterfeit miracles described in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 where it says, "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)
80. Should the book of Revelation be taken literally? Explain your answer.
"The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (Revelation 1:20)
"Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God." (Revelation 4:5)
"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." (Revelation 20:14)
These are just a few examples of why I believe Revelation for the most part is allegorical. Many of these allegories are explained in context. There were also many prophesies in the old testament where symbolism is explained. For example, see Daniel 2.
81. Would it be good for men to castrate themselves? Justify your answer, taking Matthew 19:12 into account.
Matthew 19:11 says, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given," so it would only be good for people to renounce marriage because either they were born eunuchs, were made eunuchs by men [not saying they should make themselves that way]; or because of the kingdom of heaven. "The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matthew 19:12) This also implies that the one who cannot accept it shouldn't.
82. What exactly is faith?
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is unlike belief in that while it encompasses belief, it also includes hope in what is believed. Not only do we believe in God, but we have our hope in him. True faith brings about obedience to God. (James 2:14-26)
83. All of the various Christian sects ignore parts of the Bible, usually because those parts of the Bible are inconvenient. Explain which parts of the Bible your sect ignores, and explain why it is OK to ignore those parts of the Bible.
Since I am not a member of any particular sect, I'll have to answer this question personally. First of all, I think it's more that Christians fall short of the requirements of the Bible than it is that they ignore the Bible. Also, it says, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3) Christians also rationalize the Bible to say what their itching ears want to hear. Some people do not rationalize the Bible, but reject it because it doesn't say what their itching ears want to hear. There are rationalizers both with people who believe and with people who don't believe. Those who don't believe rationalize the Bible and make it out to mean what will suit their purposes of debunking it while others rationalize in order to defend it when they don't really know it that well. I study the Bible and don't come to conclusions about the meaning of things until I'm convinced. There are some thing in the Bible I'm not sure of, but I'm not ignoring these things. Most of the things in this questionnaire are my opinions, and they can all be argued. There are some things in the Bible that no longer apply to us, but they are still important to understand. For example, we no longer sacrifice animals, but knowing about animal sacrifices helps us understand the significance of Jesus' sacrifice. (see Hebrews chapters 5 - 10 for examples)
84. Why did your god allow Satan to do evil things to Job (Job 2:7 etc.)? Wouldn't your god better spend his time punishing unbelievers?
God was answering a challenge of Satan's to show that Job's affection for God was unconditional. I believe the story of Job was written as a lesson teaching us that God will bless those of us who endure hardships and remain faithful to him. I do not believe this took away from God's time to do anything.
85. If Jesus and his father are one (John 10:30), then why does Jesus have to pray (i.e. Matthew 26:39)
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) This does not mean the man and the woman are the same person. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one. I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:22-23) This does not mean that all the believers are the same person. Likewise, the Father and the Son are not the same person.
86. Explain your belief in heaven in light of Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.
At first glance, Job 7:9 and Ecclesastes 9:5 make it appear as if there is no life after death and no resurrection, but they must be read in their context. Though Job doesn't say it explicitely, it is implicite that he means that dead people will not return to life in this age. It does not negate the reality of a resurrection in the age to come. It's even more explicite in the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5. If you read verses 3 and 6, you will see that it's talking about things that happen "under the sun." Therefore, it has no bearing on a continued existence in heaven or a future resurrection. There are many scriptures in the old testament that show that the dead will rise one day. For example in Isaiah 26:19 it says, "But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead." Also in Daniel 12:2 it says, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5 are hyperboles expressing the seriousness of death. They must be understood in the context of the whole Bible.
87. Christ giving himself up on the cross was a great gesture, true, but wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to continue spreading his message until he died a natural death? Answer this question in light of your answer to question # 1.
My answer to question # 1 says why it was not more sensible for Jesus to die a natural death. But to answer why Jesus had to die specifically when he did rather than continue preaching, let's look at a few scriptures.
"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." (Ecclesiastes 3:1)
"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." (Matthew 16:21)
"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." (John 8:59)
"So from that day on, they plotted to take his life. Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews." (John 11:53-54)
"It was just before the Passover Feast Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father." (John 13:1)
"After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life...Therefore Jesus told them, 'The right time for me has not yet come'...At that point, some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, 'Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him'...At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come." (John 7:1, 6, 25, 26, 30)
"At that time Jesus said to the crowd, 'Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.'" (Matthew 26:55-56)
All of these scriptures show that there was a specific time for Jesus to die. Jesus continued to say and do everything his Father had him say and do until his time to die had come. When that time had come, Jesus had done all the teaching his Father had him do.
88. What is your interpretation of the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9)?
Jesus was being tempted in the desert for 40 days, and both of these gospels only mention three specific temptations. I think Jesus underwent many temptations in the desert, but the authors wrote about three of them because if everything about Jesus' life were written down in these gospels, they would be incredibly long. They probably chose these specific three because they were the most significant and because they cover a diversity of principles that can be applied to a wide range of similar temptations. I don't believe these temptations are meant to be understood figuratively. I think these are three literal temptations Jesus underwent.
The first temptations was for Jesus to turn stone into bread because Jesus was hungry. Jesus responded by saying that man doesn't live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The same principle can apply to a wide variety of sins. The basic theme is whether we choose instant gratification or we consider all that God has required of our lives. As children, instant gratification seemed the way to go because we had a limited view of the world and the consequences to our actions. We didn't see the big picture. As we get older, we begin to consider more variables in our decisions and we learn that instant gratification will not always benefit us in the long run because we will reap what we sow. Even as adults, we tend to be very short sighted, while God knows what's best for us. Therefore, we should resist the temptation to do what pleases us for the moment, and instead, we should choose to live by every word that comes from the mouth of God trusting that he knows what is best for us because he has the big picture.
In the next temptation, Satan quoted a scripture out of context to entice Jesus to jump off a high place with the idea that God would send his angels to rescue Jesus from the fall. Jesus answered that it is also written one should not put God to the test. This principle also applies to a wide range of temptations we face. Basically, people want to escape responsibility for their own actions by assuming God will save them. When God doesn't do what they were trying to manipulate him into doing, they end up blaming God for the misfortune they brought upon themselves. As Solomon put it, "A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against the LORD." (Proverbs 19:3)
The next temptation was for Jesus to worship Satan in exhange for gaining all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus' response was that one should worship God and serve him only. Again, this principle also applies to a variety of senarios. Basically, the temptation we all face in life is to gain the world while forfeiting our soul. We get our priorities out of whack by lying, stealing, and cheating to get ahead in the world. Most of us have at some time in our lives, compromised our integrity for our own personal gain. Maybe it was due to greed, or maybe it was to avoid trouble, but the principle in this temptation is that one should seek first God's righteousness, doing his will, storing treasure for ourselves in Heaven, having our mind on heavenly things rather than earthly things, and avoiding the snares of greed, materialism, and selfishness. Jesus overcame all of these temptations because he had his focus on heavenly things rather than earthly things. He was God-centered rather than self-centered. I also think these temptations were written for us to have an example of how to face temptation.
89. In view of Matthew 6:5-6, shouldn't prayer in public schools be discouraged? Support your answer with scripture quotes.
I believe what Matthew 6:5-6 is warning against isn't so much praying in public, but rather praying out loud in public to show off. A person can be in public and still be in his closet if he prays quietly to himself. I do not believe that prayer should be held publically where everyone is forced to listen or join in.
90. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished").
I believe that Jesus said many things while he was on the cross. The writers of these books wrote what they felt was important.
91. Matthew and Mark say that the last words of Christ were, in Hebrew, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" This has traditionally been translated as, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" However, a more accurate translation would be, "My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?" El is the name of a specific pagan god. Why would Jesus call out to a pagan god at the moment of his death?
If you honestly want to make this argument, you've put yourself in quite a delimma. If the gospel writers were so brutally honest that they would admit to something so incriminating, then you have to also accept their testimony about the resurrection of Jesus. However, it makes no sense that the people writing this book who believe Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah would quote him calling out to a pagan god. So no, you have not given an accurate translation of this scripture. In my word study dictionary, it says that Eloi is an interjection from the Aramaic "Elahh" which means "My God." Matthew has Jesus saying "Eli, Eli," which represents Hebrew whereas Mark has Jesus saying "Eloi, Eloi," which represents Aramaic. They both mean "My God, My God." Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1 which is a prophecy about himself and his suffering. In both the original Hebrew and in the Greek Septuigent, it says, "My God, my God," and it has nothing to do with a pagan god.
92. A commonly recited litany in many forms of Christianity is "The LORD is my shepherd." (Psalm 23:1). Given the fact that the only reasons that people raise sheep are to rob them of their clothes and to kill them for meat, and the fact that sheep will often follow the shepherd to their destruction, do you think that this is any appropriate image for your god? Justify your answer.
The sheep and shepherd analogy was not used to show that we are being led by Jesus to the slaughter. Instead, this analogy is used to show that Jesus would lay down his life for us, and if one of us was lost and was found, how he would rejoice, and it also shows that God will lead us to greener pastures. (See Matthew 18:12-14 and John 10:1-18) Anything beyond this is pressing the analogy.
93. Why is the theory of the big bang any more (or less) likely than the idea that your god created the universe? Justify your answer. NOTE: I admit that science has not explained where the original supercondensed particle came from, but no one has ever explained where your god came from, either.
The big bang does not contradict the idea that God created the universe. It was not necessarily the beginning of the universe. The oscillating universe theory suggests that there was likely a big crunch before the big bang which would imply that this is a closed universe. But if the big bang were the beginning of the universe, then it would imply that there was a creator. If this particle had always existed since eternity without exploding, then it would've never exploded unless some outside force caused it to explode. This would imply the existence of some other entity besides this particle. But if this particle were created, and then exploded, that would also imply the existence of another entity besides the particle. And if this were a closed universe in which big bangs and crunches have been occuring for a very long time, then the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy of the universe is increasing implies that it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then this also implies the existence of an entity that exists independent of the mass/energy of the universe. God did not come from anywhere, but has always existed.
See my article on creation.
94. If your god is everywhere at the same time, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipotent?
Omnipotent means all powerful and authoritative. I am assuming you mean omnipresent.
"Where can I go from your Spirit? where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths (Sheol - translated as "hell" in the KJV), you are there." (Psalm 139:7-8) So hell is not the physical separation from God. (See # 2)
95. In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.
In Jeremiah 20:7, the Hebrew word "peitho" is translated as "deceived" in the NIV, but it's actual meaning is "pursuaded" which is given in the footnote in the NIV.
Ezekiel 14:9 doesn't imply that God lies, and I don't see how this scripture is relevent to the question unless you are assuming that God puts untrue words in the mouths of prophets which is not what this scripture says.
The devil mixed the truth with a lie. He told them that they would know good and evil, which was true, but then he told them they would not surely die, which was a lie. Adam died when he was 930 years old proving that the devil had lied. God didn't mean they would die on that particular day, but rather on the day they ate the fruit, they would be sure to die. The death happened later on.
96. If Lucifer is not as powerful as your god, then he cannot possibly be omnipresent. How could he possibly get as many followers as you seem to think he has?
"The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." (Revelation 12:9) So Lucifer has a lot of angels working for him. He doesn't need to be omnipresent. And furthermore, just because he isn't as powerful as God doesn't mean he isn't powerful. "We know that we are children of God, and the whole world is under the control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)
97. The Bible constantly describes your god as male. In view of the fact that your god supposedly created everything, and creation is very much a female function, isn't this at least a little bit absurd? Justify your answer.
Yes, this is an absurd question. "God is spirit," (John 4:24) so I think its silly to argue about the gender of God. I think God is referred to as a he and as a father to keep from saying "it" all the time, and also because the male has traditionally been the head of the household, and because men wrote the Bible. Women do not create. Women give birth.
98. In light of the Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., isn't Christianity polytheistic? If the Trinity is three who are one, why the three names? Justify your answers.
Before I go on, let me say there is nothing devine about Mary. Also the angels have never been considered part of the trinity. The oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit does not imply that they are all the same person. The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God revealed in three persons. God is one in nature, but three in persons. Christianity is not polytheistic. See question # 85.
99. Have you read the entire Bible? If not, how can you be devoted enough to try and convert me to a religion that you don't know that much about? Isn't knowing as much as possible about something necessary to understanding it? Isn't understanding something necessary to being completely devoted to it?
Yes, I have read the entire Bible. I don't expect to convert you. I don't believe anybody can convert anybody. I don't think understanding something is necessarry to being completely devoted to it. The more you know about something, the better your chances are of understanding it, but that doesn't guarantee that you will understand it. People don't completely understand how their TV, microwave, or automobile works, yet they put full confidence in it that when they turn it on, it will work.
100. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly like Isaiah 37?
Because they are both telling about the same history and prophesy. This history and prophecy was written in different books. Why not? There are several stories in the Bible that are told more than once, often verbatim, probably because they used the same sources.
101. Is Jesus' three days in hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question # 11)?
Yes, he layed down his life for us. Those who don't accept this will suffer for their own sins, and not the sins of anybody else. Jesus suffered for everybody else's sins who would accept it, but he had no sins of his own.
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)
The reason some people say that Jesus went to hell for three days is because of 1 Peter 3:18-20, which says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." The word "prison," in that context is often thought to refer poetically to the bottomless pit, abyss, Tartarsus, as the prison of demons and the souls of wicked men, but the meaning of this scripture is debatable. Even if Jesus did go to such a place, he did not go there to suffer for our sins. He went there to preach to the dead people there. The price for our sins was paid in full on the cross.
102. If your sect considers the King James Bible to be the official and/or authoritative translation, justify this in light of the fact that when King James commissioned his translation to be poetic rather than accurate. How can you possibly use an inaccurate translation as your reference for what is/is not the word of your god? If your sect does not use the King James Bible, what translation do they use? Justify the use of that particular translation.
King James did not ask that the KJV be poetic at the expense of accuracy. The translators of the KJV were very careful to given an accurate translation, and they relied on the Textus Receptus (Recieved Text) which was the result of years of textual criticism and was very accurate for what manuscripts they had to work with. They also compared their translation to other English translations and to the Latin Vulgate.
I primarily use the New International Version because it was translated by over 100 people of different denominations and therefore was guarded against any kind of sectarian bias. It is also based on more modern textual criticism which has many more manuscripts to work with than did those who arranged the Textus Receptus. I also look at other translations and compare, but I mainly use the NIV. Having a Greek word study dictionary helps too. The NIV is about the best thought for thought translation, and the NAS is about the best word for word translation.
103. Assume that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that if he did, that necessarily means I will go to your heaven. Name one thing that Jesus ever did for me.
You might as well say, "Assume I don't believe Jesus did anything for me, and name one thing Jesus did for me." Despite the fact that you don't believe Jesus died for you, he still did. He also provided much teaching on the nature of God and God's kingdom for our understanding, and he told us how we should live our lives. He sends the Holy Spirit to convict us, teach us, and comfort us. He warned us about the end times. He taught us many things about the kingdom of heaven and about his Father and his purposes. He's the source of our life, and he provides us with everything we need. Jesus created everything, so there is nothing he did not do for you.
104. Before Mary was knocked up by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, she was never asked for her consent. (She was warned; see Luke 1:31). Mary was also asleep when your god knocked her up; this strongly suggests that he didn't want her to protest. Does this mean that Mary was raped by your god? Do you think rape is wrong? Explain.
Mary was very willing to do what Gabriel told her she was going to do. Her response was, "I am the Lord's servant. Maybe it be to me as you have said." (Luke 1:38) You can't rape the willing. Also, the Holy Spirit didn't have sex with her. None of it was a physical thing. The seed was planted in her while she was sleeping. Also see Luke 1:46-55 to see what an honor Mary considered it to be the mother of the Messiah.
105. According to Luke, Mary knew that she was pregnant with the Messiah. Living in the times she lived in, she must have known the scripture; therefore, she must have known that he would have to suffer horribly during his life. Was it moral for Mary to carry her baby to term, or would it have been more humane for her to have an abortion? Explain.
Most of the Jews did not recognize their Messiah because they didn't understand the scriptures. They liked the prophesies of the reigning Messiah, but they tended to ignore the prophesies of the suffering Messiah. Even though Jesus kept telling his disciples that he had to be put to death and would rise again on the third day, they didn't understand. They kept asking him if he was going to restore the throne of David to Israel. But even if Mary did know how much Jesus was going to suffer, it would still not be immoral for her to not have an abortion since it was not God's will. Mercy killing is not scriptural.
106. If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39)
Jesus avoided being killed because it was not yet his time. When it got to be his time, he went willingly. See question # 87.
107. If the Holy Spirit/Ghost is the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35), then why is the central figure of your trinity called God the Father?
Look at Luke 1:35 again, and read it from verse 32. Mary became pregnant by the power of the Most High, and Jesus is the son of the Most High. God caused Mary to become pregnant. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.
108. Mary and Jehovah were never joined in wedlock. Does it bother you that Jesus is technically a bastard?
Jesus was the son of God. He was adopted by Joseph. This doesn't make him a bastard.
109. The original Hebrew word for the Holy Ghost/Spirit includes the idea that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is female in gender. Isn't this rather silly when you consider the fact that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is actually the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35)?
Yes, this is a rather silly question. See question #97 and # 107.
110. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn't the other three gospels mention it? Why didn't the Roman soldiers get into trouble?
There's lots of ways Matthew could've found out about this conspiracy. Since the soldiers actually witnessed the resurrection and knew that Jesus' body was not stolen, it's likely that any one of them became Christians at some point, and told Matthew or anybody else. Since there would be a danger in the soldier getting in trouble if this conspiracy leaked, the soldier probably didn't tell too many people, and whoever he did tell kept it a secret in order to keep the soldier out of trouble. Since the conspiracy was not publically known, in order to keep the converted soldier out of trouble, the rumour still became widely circulated among the Jews. That's one possibility. There are others. We can't know for sure. We can only speculate.
111. Jews believe that people are basically good people and can work to overcome their sinful tendencies. Most Christian sects, following the teaching of Psalm 51:5, 1 Kings 8:46; Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 59:2, and Psalm 143:2, believe that people are completely debased and hopelessly lost in sin, and that only your god can lift us out of this state if he decides to bestow his gift of grace on us? Isn't this an incredibly negative view of people? Isn't Judaism a more mature faith just for this reason?
Yes, this is a negative view of people. It's also true. A faith isn't mature because what they believe is acceptable to us, but rather if what they believe is true.
112. How do you, as an individual, feel about Psalm 51:5?
I feel totally depraved. Actually, I think this is a figure of speech. For example one might say, "I was born with a guitar in my hand." That doesn't mean he was actually born with a guitar in his hand. That means he plays the guitar very well, and has probably been playing it for a long time. And I believe Psalm 51:5 means that he was totally depraved and sinful and had been for a long time.
113. What does your sect teach about Psalm 51:5 (and 1 Kings 8:46, etc.), predestination, and similar matters?
Since your scriptures seem to be in reference to total depravity, and you specifically asked about predestination, I'm going to assume that by "similar matters," you mean to ask what my views are on the five points of Calvinism.
(1) Total Depravity (everybody sins): I agree with this point. The scriptures are explicit that, "there is no one who does not sin." (1 Kings 8:46)
(2) Unconditional Election (a person can only be saved if God draws him, and God doesn't draw everybody): I partly agree with this point. I believe that, "No one comes to me [Jesus] unless the father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44) I partly disagree with this point because Jesus said, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32) If all men are drawn to Jesus, and not all men become saved, then it's obvious that this point is false when it says an unsaved person was never drawn. Everybody who is saved was drawn, but not everybody who is drawn gets saved.
(3) Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for certain people): I completely disagree with this point because it is explicitly refuted in scripture. God, "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth," (1 Timothy 2:4) which is why Jesus, "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) He is the, "savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10) The gift of salvation was bought for everybody in all walks of life and need only be claimed.
(4) Irresistable Grace (all who are drawn by God will accept salvation): I also disagree with this point. As mentioned in previous points, all people are drawn to Jesus, but because it's clear that not all have accepted God, it is obvious that a person can reject salvation.
(5) Perseverence of the Saints (once saved, always saved): I disagree with this point, but not as strongly as the other points. There are several scriptures that indicate a person can lose his salvation. I'll just mention two. In Romans 11, where Paul is making his olive root analogy, he says that God showed, "kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22) Paul also wrote, "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation - if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23)
Because predestination is so controversial, I will list a few scriptures that deal with this matter, and you can decide. (See Prov 16: 1,9; 19:21; 20:24; Romans 8:29-30; Romans 9; Ephesians 1:4-6)
114. Don't you think that the idea that no matter what we do, we can never be good and righteous without help from your god (Isaiah 64:6) fosters an unnatural and unhealthy dependency on him?
Not at all. I think most of the failures of man that cause wars, starvation, and oppression are due to man trying to be independent of God. So I think forming a dependency on God would be very healthy. I think the need for a leader, whether it be a man made government, a philospher, a God, or whatever is a very natural part of man.
"But when they said, 'Give us a king to lead us,' this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: 'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." (1 Samuel 8:6,7)
"But my people would not listen to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. If my people would but listen to me, if Israel would follow my ways, how quickly would I subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes." (Psalm 81:10-14)
"You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper. Where is your king that he may save you? Where are your rulers in all your towns, of whom you said, 'Give me a king and princes'? So in my anger I gave you a king, and in my wrath I took him away." (Hosea 13:9-11)
"So he gave them what they asked for, but sent a wasting disease upon them." (Psalm 106:15)
115. Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?
Mary could very well have been a descendent of David. Spiritually speaking, Jesus was the son of God because he pre-existed as such. He is the adopted son of Joseph which to the Jews was just as good as being his real son.
116. What would the correct thing to do be if your god gave you a command that was harmful and/or destructive to you? A common argument, which comes from Paul, states that because clay pots don't complain about what the potter does with them, people shouldn't complain about what their maker (supposedly, your god) does with them, but this completely ignores the vitally important argument that clay pots have no sense of self-awareness and cannot think or feel love, pain, anger, etc. If you want to make this argument, you have to deal with this difference.
Paul's analogy of clay pots has nothing to do with God commanding people to do things harmful to themselves. I believe you ought to do whatever God tells you to do no matter what. I think this is kind of a silly question, because it's like asking, "what if good were bad, and bad were good?" God wouldn't command us to do anything that was not in out best interest. When he commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, it was only to test him to see if he would be obedient. Abraham obeyed God, and God was pleased, which indicates that if God asked us to do something harmful to us, we should be willing to do it. But God didn't allow Abraham to follow through with it. He only wanted to test Abraham's willingness to follow through with it. Everything God commands us to do is in our best interest.
117. What (or who) does your sect believe the number 666 represents? Justify your answer.
In Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, numbers were written with letters. Each letter of a person's name represents a number. I believe that whoever the antichrist is, his name, when you add up the letters, will total 666. In Revelation, it says the mark of the beast will be "the name of the beast or the number of his name," (Revelation 13:17) and it says, "His number is 666." (vs 18) There have been a lot of people whose names have added up to 666, so we can't name the antichrist on this criteria alone.
118. If your god is "just and merciful," why would he take Solomon's kingdom away from Solomon's son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon's son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12)
The punishment was for Solomon. Solomon's son was reaping what Solomon sowed. The kingdom was going to be taken away from the line of David because of Solomon's sin, but God only waited until after Solomon was dead for the sake of David. He also gave Solomon's son rule over one tribe for the sake of David.
119. Why is Solomon commonly considered to be the paragon of wisdom by many Christians, when he constantly sinned against your god (1 Kings 11:4-10, etc.)? Personally, if I had a god talking to me, I'd do what he said.
"For there is no one who does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46)
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)
"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." (James 1:5)
"I [God] will give you [Solomon] a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be." (1 Kings 3:12)
120. Don't you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book "Song of Solomon" is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to "drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate." The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the "spiced wine" represented menstrual blood).
I do not take an anti-sex position. You're associations are rather esoteric, and do not constitute a reliable method of Biblical interpretation.
121. Does it bother you that the cross, supposedly a Christian symbol, was actually stolen from the Egyptians? Why or why not? (The Egyptian cross, the ankh, was a male-female symbol similar in concept to the yin-yang. When the Christians stole the ankh from the Egyptians, they removed the female symbol, or yoni, leaving only the masculine symbol--a subtle way of reinforcing the idea that women are lesser beings).
Christians didn't steal the cross from the Egyptian ankh. Jesus died on a cross. There's a lot of things that resemble that same shape (e.g. telephone poles), so it's only coincidence that the Egyptian ankh resembles it. Besides, we're just talking about symbols here, and I don't worship religious icons, so the issue is not important enough to me that it would bother me if what you are saying were true.
"Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21)
122. How do you explain that Christians are twice as likely to have sadomasochistic tendencies as non-Christians?
I would be interested in seeing the statistics supporting this claim.
123. What is the incredibly important doctrinal difference that requires the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?
I have no clue. I think it's more of a political problem than a religious one.
124. Even if your god did create the universe, why does he want to be worshipped? Is your god an egomaniac?
Worship is our expression of love, honor, and respect for God. We owe him that.
125. What are your beliefs concerning Wicca? ("white witchcraft"). How do you know about Wicca?
Everything I know about Wicca is from people I have known who are Wiccans. Basically, they believe in a god and a goddess. Each Wiccan's religion is his own. He relates to his deity in his own way, and therefore sort of puts a face on it. They believe that everything is alive. Everything has "spiritual energy." When we die, our energy returns to the rest of the universe. Wicca is the modern version of some old pagan beliefs and practices.
126. What do you think the word "Satanist" means?
Satanists are anti-Christians. They believe in doing what you feel.
127. How do you explain the fact that the word "blood" occurs over 400 times in the Bible? Isn't this a rather savage way to write a book that is supposed to be at the center of an ethical system?
The Bible is very ethical depite the fact that blood is mentioned so much. Blood is not an evil thing, and it's not unethical to talk about it. Blood is sacred. That's why it's talked about so much.
128. Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers?
God isn't commanding me to wage merciless wars on unbelievers. Israel was only justified in going to war when God specifically sent them. They were agents of his wrath. He is no longer commanding his followers to wage war. It is not a Christian's place in the world to wage war, but if he did command us to wage war, we would. Israel was under theocratic rule when God was sending them to war. There is no government today that is under theocratic rule. Since Christians are citizens of Christ's kingdom which is not of this world, and since they are aliens and strangers in this world, it is not their place to go to war against unbelievers.
See my article on conscientious objectors.
129. Numbers 23:21 says that your god "has not seen wickedness in Israel." If this is so, explain why your god burned Israelites for complaining (Num 11:1), sent a plague against them for eating the meat he had given them (Num 11:33), why he burned people for using incense (Num 16:35), why he sent a plague against the Israelites who accused Moses of wrongdoing (Num 16:44-49), and why he sent fiery snakes among the Israelites (Num 21:5). Is your god a liar, or was it just more convenient for him to lie at that particular place and time, or what?
When God said he saw no wickedness in Israel, it was probably because he didn't see wickedness in Israel. And when he sent all those plagues and stuff, it was probably because he did see wickedness in Israel.
130. What was it that was so bad about eating an apple that death had to result from that act?
God told them not to eat the fruit or they would die. They disobeyed God knowing that they would die. "The wages of sin are death." (Romans 6:23)
131. What was it about humanity's torturing and killing of your god's only son that made your god so happy that he again promised eternal life to everyone who believed in him?
Jesus bore the burdon of our sins when he died on the cross. "The wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) For more about this, read Hebrews chapter 7 through 10.
132. How do you explain that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus?
There are several possibilities. It could've been that Joseph was adopted. One of them traced Joseph's lineage through his natural father, and the other traced his lineage through his adopted father. A more popular theory is that Luke traced Jesus' geneology through Mary, and Matthew traced his geneology through Joseph. Joseph is included in the geneology in Luke because he was the son-in-law of Mary's father. So Jesus has both a natural right to the throne and a legal right to the throne. Both Mary's and Joseph's geneologies go back to David. Also, Matthew did not include everybody in the geneology, but skipped generations. Grandchildren and so on were considered sons. Also, some people went by different names.
133. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?
Matthew did not quote Zechariah exactly. Matthew was summarizing from both Jeremiah and Zechariah, but primarily from Zechariah. (see Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9) Instead of mentioning both prophets, Matthew only mentioned the major prophet, Jeremiah.
134. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament?
This is in verse 23, not 21. Nazareth is not found in the old testament at all. Many people believe that Matthew is making a play on words since Nazareth sounds like the Hebrew word "netzer" which means "branch" or "shoot." Nazareth is a transliteration of the Hebrew word "Nazaret." If that's true, then Matthew is probably referring to Isaiah 11:1, which says, "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit." (See also Jeremiah 23:5 and Zechariah 3:8) Another possible explanation is that Matthew is refering to a prophecy that has not been preserved to our day.
135. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an ass and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ass, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one ass (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)?
Matthew 21:7 says, "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them." This does not mean Jesus sat on both of the animals at the same time. "Them" refers to the cloaks. The prophecy and the gospels are all in agreement that Jesus rode a donkey.
136. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?
"Almah" can be translated as young woman or virgin. Virginity is implied with the word, "almah," since almost every use of the word "almah" in the old testament refers to a young unmarried woman who was a virgin, which you can tell from the context. Sometimes "almah" is used symbolically to mean chaste, pure, etc. (See Genesis 24:16,43; Leviticus 21:3,14; Deuteronomy 22:19,23; 2 Samuel 13:2; 1 Kings 1:2; Jeremiah 14:17; 18:13 etc.)
137. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destryoed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?
The two kingdoms that Isaiah 7:16 is talking about is Aram (or Syria) and Israel. (Isaiah 7:1; 2 Kings 16:5) In 2 Kings 16:9, it says that "the king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death." Resin was the king of Aram (or Syria) and Demascus was the capital. In 2 Kings 17:6, it says, "In the nineth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes." So the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:16 is in the old testament.
138. Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?
"Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered, 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.'" (John 14:8-10)
Jesus called himself Immanuel when he told his disciples that when they have seen Jesus, they have seen the Father because the Father is in the Son. Names back then were not just words used to identify people, but they carried meaning. And the meaning of Immanuel is believed by most Christians today. They believe that Jesus is Immanuel (God with us).
139. How many inconsistencies in the Bible, other than those mentioned in this paper, do you know of? Cite chapter and verse for as many as you have room for.
2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13
Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:14,15
Isaiah 7:14; Romans 9:5; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1,14 and John 14:28; Philipians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28; 1 Corinthians 11:3; John 20:17; Revelation 1:6
Matthew 18:10-14; Luke 15:11-31 and Hebrew 6:4-6
Isaiah 60;21; Psalm 37:11; Psalm 37:29; Matthew 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:17
Proverbs 26:4 and Proverbs 26:5
John 1:21 and Matthew 11:14; 17:11-13
John 5:22,27 and John 3:17
Exodus 20:5-6 and Ezekiel 18:20
Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18-19
Luke 24:37-39 and 1 Corinthians 15:45
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicals 21:1
1 Timothy 5:14; 1 Corinthians 7:39 and 1 Timothy 5:11-12
140. If even the contemplation of sinning is a sin (i.e. "sinning in your heart"; see, for example, Matthew 5:28) and if Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9), how can you say that Jesus was without sin?
A person cannot be tempted in a sin without having thought about it. I do not believe having the thought cross your mind is a sin. I believe entertaining the thought is a sin. If the only thing keeping you from a sin is the lack of opportunity, then you are sinning in your heart.
"What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" (Mark 7:20-23)
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciencious are corrupted." (Titus 1:15)
A person can face temptation and not sin because his heart is clean from the inside, and no outside temptation can make him unclean.
141. Does your sect believe that the existence of your god can be established through a formal proof? Why or why not?
Most proofs in the scientific world require physical evidence. God is not a physical being; therefore, his existence cannot be determined through scientific experimentation. However, there is much scientific evidence to support the existence of a creator.
142. Pick a famous argument for the existence of your god, then criticize that argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of criticize).
(1) Everything that happens has a prior cause.
Premise 1 is obviously true. The argument fails if one cannot support premise 2. If premise 1 and 2 are true, then premise 3 follows, except that we can't know for certain that the uncaused first cause is God. We can't even know from this proof if God is a conscious being.
143. Pick an argument against the existence of your god. If it is not a famous argument, copy it down here. Criticize this argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of the word criticize).
(1) If there were an all powerful and good God, evil would not exist.
The major difficulty with this proof is that it requires one to prove that objective moral values can exist if God does not exist. The assumption is that if God were able to, the right thing for him to do would be to end all evil immediately. How do we know that's the right thing to do? How can we even talk about what is right and wrong if there is no objective standard by which to derive our morals from? If a person can prove that (1) objective moral values can exist without God, and (2) it is objectively true that God should end all evil immediately, all he will have been able to prove with this proof is either that God is not all good or that God is not all powerful.
144. What does your sect think of the government? Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13. Now what do you think of the government? If necessary, reconcile the two views.
See my article on man's relationship to government.
145. What is your definition of the word Christian?
One who follows Christ.
"Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servants also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me." (John 12:26)
146. Why do you think it is that the ancient Greeks, who had a very liberal sexual morality, had many fewer sex crimes (compared to the population) than the United States, which is 85% Christian?
When you increase the laws, the crimes tend to increase.
"Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)
147. If someone accepts Jesus, and is "saved," but then turns away from Jesus, is that person still saved?
Our salvation depends on us accepting his salvation and accepting him as our king. When we reject him as our king, then we are no longer part of his kingdom. Also, repentence is a requirement for salvation, which means one must turn from his evil ways and do good. If he then turns back, then he no longer fulfills the requirement for salvation.
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29) Since it is by grace that we were saved, and not by our own effort, anybody who abuses this grace will no longer be covered by the grace. It says, "Lives as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16)
"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:2) So a person only maintains his salvation as long as he believes the gospel. If a person believes the gospel at some point in his life and becomes saved, but then he stops believing the gospel, he will have initially believed in vain because he will have lost the hope of salvation.
In Romans 11, where Paul is making his olive root analogy, he says that God showed, "kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22) If we don't continue in God's kindness, we will be cut off. By God's kindness, we mean his grace because grace is undeserved kindness. Since it is by grace we have been saved, then to reject God's kindness is to reject salvation and to be cut off.
"But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation - if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23) We have to continue to have faith in the gospel in order to continue being saved.
148. Where did your god come from?
God didn't come from anywhere. He has always been.
"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (Psalm 90:2)
149. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects says that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think?
A person can't be saved if he isn't sincere. A sincere person will want to do God's will. Therefore, though we are saved by faith, faith without works is dead. In other words, it doesn't accomplish anything, and it does not come from a sincere heart.
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12)
Therefore, good works inevidibly accompany true faith. No good tree bears bad fruit, but a good tree bears good fruit. True faith brings about good works, so they are both requirements for salvation. Dead faith is not faith at all because it doesn't bring about good works.
"He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit, he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful." (John 15:2)
"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:8-10)
So faith alone does not save us, but rather, it is through faith we are saved because faith brings about works. Work alone cannot save us, nor can any effort that we make save us, but rather, we are saved because of the grace of God. Salvation is a gift, and is not earned. God bestows this gift on those who love him. Those who love him obey what he commands.
"This is love for God: to obey his commands." (1 John 5:3)
Also see my article on salvation.
150. If I decided I like the answers to the above questions, where can I get in touch with you? (Give name, address, phone and email if available).
151. What is the name of your sect?
I'm not a member of any sect.
152. How is your sect organized?
I am only representing myself in this questionnaire, and not a sect.
153. How can I get in touch with a priest (minister, etc.) of your sect?
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant." (Matthew 23:8-11)
This question does not apply to me since I'm not a memeber of a religious sect, but I like this scripture.
(2) The string of causes cannot go back to infinity.
(3) Therefore, there must've been an uncaused first cause, which is God.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.