Total posts: 58
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Salvation for the Christian is simple and complex.God is eternal. Humans are time creatures. Hence when we look at something - we consider in the past, the present and the future. For God - there is no particular distinction between the three. And in the Scriptures - He works in both time and eternity.
Are we time creatures presently, because there's death? Man may think in the past present and future, but we also ponder a whole lot about eternity, and faith is an eternal venture because it deals with the afterlife. Wouldn't this equate to us being eternal as well?
Christians talk about being saved. We talk about being saved. And we talk about the fact that we will be saved.Jesus died on the cross to secure salvation. This is past history. Yet in our lives - we continue to sin. And when we die or Jesus returns, and when we are in heaven there will be no more sin.
In 1st John it outlines that those who live in him won't continue to sin. I imagine this is referring only to willful sin.
Christians also talk about salvation, sanctification, and glorification to describe these three aspects of time. They are at times used interchangeably. For instance when Paul says - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The word salvation is not getting saved - so far as the process of sanctification.Salvation begins in the past - and never ends. It is everlasting. Hence when people trust Jesus - they are saved from that moment on - everlasting.I think it is inaccurate to use the term eternal life for Christians. Not a heresy. But unhelpful - since it mixes eternity with time, the divine with the human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Does Christianity present salvation as a whole, in the afterlife, or are Christians saved while being saved? For instance, is man's spirit saved by the Holy Spirit, saving the body and soul? For somewhere it says the spirit returns unto God, and elsewhere, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.Thats a very good question what you asked because when you are saved only a true christian can be saved and go to heaven and his boy will be saved and his spirit will be saved too because the body will be immacculate and glowing and dressed in white. But if you are not saved it is your fault because you did not want to be saved because you did not get saved by Jesus and then your body will be saved alright but it will be saved in hell when a drop of water will not touch your tung and your teeth will nash. But your soul it will not destroy because hell is eternal to and your body will burn but it will keep burning for eternity.
Yes, but do Christians experience salvation in the present life or is salvation something only to be experienced after death? If the latter, then in what way does the Spirit testify with a Christian's that they are saved, as is mentioned in the new testament?
Created:
Posted in:
Does Christianity present salvation as a whole, in the afterlife, or are Christians saved while being saved? For instance, is man's spirit saved by the Holy Spirit, saving the body and soul? For somewhere it says the spirit returns unto God, and elsewhere, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Or do we see the animal kingdom punishing for acts we would consider undoubtedly virtuous?A mother lion that tries to protect her cubs from a new pride leader will be attacked by the pride leader (de facto king).
If one can call this a punishment, then it is a different type. The new pride leader isn't attacking to knock the mother's instinct to protect her offspring out of her. I doubt that's his plan, and if it is, he fails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Presently, but life can't sustain itself that way on its own. There needs to be the reproduction of life to continue that way of sustaining. It isn't by feeding on dead things then that life sustains itself, but by reproduction.Please explain how "reproduction" doesn't require dead things.
We do not reproduce so that we can kill, we kill so that we can reproduce. Even a just murder doesn't necessitate it becoming good, because life should always hope to beget life and not take it. I would say nature herself upholds this aspiration and avoidance. Most animals are known to not kill more than needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If life is in itself a good thing, then the taking of life must be by nature contrary to what is good.Doesn't all life sustain itself by feeding on dead things?
Presently, but life can't sustain itself that way on its own. There needs to be the reproduction of life to continue that way of sustaining. It isn't by feeding on dead things then that life sustains itself, but by reproduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine a world where we are as we currently are but with one caveat: we can't speak.Even apes punish liars.
Yes, apes and the animal kingdom in general don't neglect punishing. One isn't a liar until they have gone to their death not knowing any other way; until then they're a wandering soul who tells lies. Life then, sustains a type of knowing of the way of righteousness, and species other than man appear as well to work from this recognition. Or do we see the animal kingdom punishing for acts we would consider undoubtedly virtuous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Why is murder actually wrong.
Imagine a world where we are as we currently are but with one caveat: we can't speak. Now, we have the advantage of verbal communication to understand that humans have generally agreed at the root of the matter, that murder is wrong. With the caveat, we wouldn't be influenced by each other's words to agree or disagree one way or the other, but since we would remain the same otherwise, would we assume individual preference to the idea of murder? I imagine not, for a community that silently does not murder could not provoke the thought that it's of personal taste.
If life is in itself a good thing, then the taking of life must be by nature contrary to what is good. Even a just murder in this perspective doesn't necessitate murder becoming good, because life should always hope to beget life and not take it. A necessary evil doesn't lessen the evil, but only makes it necessary. Murder in itself cannot be okay if it has to rely on it being just to be called so, and its only option is to rely on being just, because murder implies intent. You can kill accidentally but you can't murder accidentally. Kindness in itself is good because we don't need to justify its moment, the moment is now, forever.
To put simply: murder is wrong because it has to have a reason (on the grounds of subjective and objective thought and everything in between) to become okay. It is not in itself an okay thing.
Created: