Right, that is were I differ a bit from Ray comfort. I believe the entirety of the whole moral law of God is the issue. which we all fail and fall short in some form or another.
Fair enough.
Its Gods standard, one must study the purpose of Gods Law and why it came into being, It was to show us our guilt before a Holy God and our need for Jesus. The book of Romans explains this in great detail. Ray comfort gives a concise version on his Tv program, but is is a little deeper then that. I will explain if asked its just hard to do ON a forum. I am a horrible typist lt takes like forever for me to proof read my replies. lol
Okay, but the question still remains: any time you or anyone else suggests a standard for morality, we can ask what makes that standard moral. I've read Romans; I can't recall anything that really justifies how "God's law" is moral to my satisfaction.
Right, but Gods prescribe order of justification is his son Jesus. hence the need for a Savior. With out accepting Christ we are going to be judged according to Gods standard not ours, If one is not a born again according to the bible. All God demands really is Faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus as a means for being justified and put in right standing with God the Father.
I don't really see how this addresses my point. You (and others) are saying that humans have failed to meet the standard that they're supposed to meet. Now, you're suggesting that Christ is the way that we can be made to meet this standard. However, this still means that God's creation failed.
IOW, you're basically saying "what was broken will be fixed"; this doesn't change the fact that it was broken in the first place, and if this brokenness is endemic to every single person, then the fault for this brokenness lies with our designer and creator. Even if God corrects his mistake in the end, he still made a mistake.
No man has failed, again the law could never bring about justification only the knowledge of sin.
So God deliberately created a situation where we were incapable of meeting the standard he demanded of us? This is unfair and unjust.
Here is Scripture on that Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Also in Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Yeah, I know this is in the Bible, but like other things that have been said in this thread, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense.
That's understandable, but that is the case as the bible says "you must be born again" It is all about faith for initial justification. weather how much one thinks the severity of his sin is, is irrelevant. God is Holy we are not, we need Jesus to be Holy. Now I know that may sound ridiculous but it is true.
It's not just ridiculous; it's nonsensical. Why should faith have anything to do with whether or not we're punished under some impossible, intrinsically unfair system?
It's arbitrary. Why does "if you believe in Jesus, you'll be saved" make any more sense than, say, "if you spin around three times while hopping on one leg, you'll be saved"?
Yes it is, but God so love the word that he gave his only begotten son for Mankind that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us".
I don't see how this is a loving act. It seems much less loving than creating humanity or God's law in such a way in the first place that we could meet it.
But really I believe the abhorrent thing is our rejection of it and throwing it back in Gods face saying I do not need it. That is what Christianity is about, God sent his son into the Word for sinful fallen man. Jesus laid down his life freely as a sin offering. So no one does not have to be judged according to Gods standard. That is all God requires is faith in that fact. To me that shows Gods love for his creation.
For me, it's not a matter of saying "I don't need it". If Christianity is right, I probably do. It's a matter of rejecting the inherent injustice in making the only truly innocent person in all of existence suffer for the sins of everyone for all time. It's a matter of not being able to get past the inherent immorality of this act to see to my own self-interest.
Imagine you were adrift at sea and a ship comes alongside. The captain throws you a strange-looking rope and shouts to you "hey! I braided this rope from the skins of my children, who I killed to make it... and I made it just for you! Grab hold, come aboard, and you'll live!" Would you grab that rope? I'm not sure if I would, even if it meant drowning. Would you worry about offending this person by refusing, or would you tell him that he's a monster?
That's a pretty close analogy to how I feel about the Atonement as it's presented in mainstream Christianity. It's so bizarre that I can't see how it could be necessary, and so evil that I can't see how I could accept it even if it was necessary.
Do You think the rejection is actually rejection Christ and the cross or is it really this approach.
Depends on the person, but I do think that Man of Faith's approach is especially bad and illogical, even if Christ was real.
To me it seems pretty simple, even when I was an atheist. I just consciously rejected it. I did not see the need for Gods forgiveness in my life. And a lot of these question, and not understanding it went away one day when I prayed and asked Jesus in my life and asked God to forgive for sinning against him.
It's simple to me, too: would I sell my (figurative) soul to gain eternal life? Would I accept something I know to be evil to save my own skin? For me, the answer is "no", and that's why I'm not a Christian.
... well, that and the whole "I see no evidence for God" thing.
