Requirements necessary to be a Christian

[Marcus Scaurus]

Thread split from "Update on my "Girl Problem"" -TBN

Edit: BTW, I would classify myself as Christian and conservative (America: :wub: Yea!) but don't necessarily hold to all that the Bible says. I think that Jesus's philosophy of love, forgiveness, compassion, and understanding is the best philosophy man has ever come up with. But :wub: a sin? Nah, doesn't say that, thats an interpretation added by douchebag humans. I also see no problems with premarital sex. I think God wanted us to be happy and make each other happy by providing joy. If I can honestly pursue making a woman feel good in a particular moment, in this life, by making her climax then I've done her a service, and there IS nothing dishonest about mutually pleasuring each other to simply provide pleasure and fun.

You don't seem to understand Christianity. You're ignoring what the Bible says about :wub: and premarital sex, so you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

[mongoose]

Then they are no Christians, since everyone has at least commited some kind of sin...

[Turbo]

Then they are no Christians, since everyone has at least commited some kind of sin...

The only person without sin is Christ. All Christians including the Apostles wrestled with sin and sinned. The ability to be forgiven if a sin is repented is one of the great gifts Christ gave us in his death.

This reflects the old view that men's seed carried a whole person. So, spilling ones seed was almost murder.

I wonder where this leaves women? Without any seed to spill, :wub: is fine? And what if I don't climax?


Those were just for fun. Here is the real answer: THE BIBLE DOESN'T ADDRESS :wub:!
Why don't you reread it eh fellows?

Some erringly cite Onan in Gen. 38:9 who spilled his seed on the ground, as a justification for :wub: being a sin. But this is a mistake since this is not dealing with :wub:.

"And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother," (Gen. 38:9).

This is not about :wub:. It is about the failure of Onan to give children to Tamar, the widow of his brother, and fulfill his duty to raise offspring in his brother's name. By refusing his obligation, he sinned.

No other mention of :wub: exists. You subscribe to dogma never even mentioned in the Bible, that reflects medieval views on sexuality and conception.

Your interpretation of the Onan passage is just that - an interpretation. You are however ignoring one important fact - :wub: is clearly lust --period. Lust is clearly defined in the Bible as being sinful. I could care less whether this fact is medieval, victorian, or not currently fashionable.

[Darth Wong]

Your interpretation of the Onan passage is just that - an interpretation. You are however ignoring one important fact - :wub: is clearly lust --period. Lust is clearly defined in the Bible as being sinful. I could care less whether this fact is medieval, victorian, or not currently fashionable.

I find it hilarious that you think his interpretations are "just that - an interpretation" whereas your interpretations are a "fact". My God man, step back and listen to what you're saying.

[Turbo]

I find it hilarious that you think his interpretations are "just that - an interpretation" whereas your interpretations are a "fact". My God man, step back and listen to what you're saying.

I m-u-s-t show restraint and not respond to this transparent attempt to irrate and start another flaming war. I'll report it instead.

If you are determined to call something a sin, then to you it is a sin. However, others consider this: if :wub:, wet dreams, and sex with a spouse, which would also have included sexual lust and sexual fantasies, clearly are not a sin during the demanding age of law, then it is clearly not a sin under the age of grace, where we Christians are under grace and the law of love.

Acts 10:13 Then a voice said to Peter, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "No, Lord! I have never eaten food that is unholy or unclean." 15 But the voice said to him again, "God has made these things clean so don't call them 'unholy'!"

That is about more than food, it is about everything he created.

Furthermore, Leviticus 15:16-18 reads: If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and [there is] an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.

This is about washing your funky clothes, and clearly the emissions refer to :wub:, wet dreams, and sex with a partner. All three: :wub:, wet dreams, and sex with a partner would also nclude sexual lust and sexual fantasies along with them. These did not require any sin offering. This clearly shows it is not a sin. There is no requirement of any sin offering of any kind.

Now, why would something not considered sinful in the Old Testament, under strict laws, be considered sinful when Jesus came to say "discard that old stuff and listen up--just love, forgive, and believe in me"?

Or, at least, that is my humble interpretation

Your interpretation is at least well thought out. Certainly better than the thinly veiled flaming that comes from certain people on here. The Church's teachings are that it is the lust that drives the :wub: that is sinful. How do you explain this?

[Darth Wong]

I m-u-s-t show restraint and not respond to this transparent attempt to irrate and start another flaming war. I'll report it instead.

Right, as if calling you on your transparent double-standard is offensive behaviour. The real problem here is that you are being massively hypocritical; you tell other people that their interpretations of the Bible are wrong, then you "correct" them with your interpretation, as if yours must be right and theirs must be wrong. You even call your interpretation a "fact", as if it's not an interpretation at all.

[crazyj]

I m-u-s-t show restraint and not respond to this transparent attempt to irrate and start another flaming war. I'll report it instead.



Your interpretation is at least well thought out. Certainly better than the thinly veiled flaming that comes from certain people on here. The Church's teachings are that it is the lust that drives the :wub: that is sinful. How do you explain this?

I think the Church is referring to "bad lust". Sorry if that is poorly articulated, but we lack multiple words for lust.

It refers to the lust that causes obsession with anothers wife, or causes one to be unfaithful to his own, or causes him to obsess over something to the point of abandoning or neglecting other Christian duties.

For instance, the lust of the 55 year old Homeland Security official for 14 year old girls, where he sent them porno vids, etc. rather than the natural and innately human lust/desire/affection which causes people to be attracted to and love others in a positive way. Most lust actually stems from a desire to love and be loved by another, and a desire for the opportunit to express that affection. It is when the actual act of gratification becomes more important than the other things that should be associated with that lust becomes sinful and out of control.

I would certainly agree lust can be bad, but not in all circumstances, which is why I don't consider "lust" in its generalized form as relating to :wub:, consensual sex, etc to be bad. It is about honesty and love for the other in those situations, rather than a desire to gratify oneself at their expense, or to lust after them as objects of such simple gratification.

For instance, if one who thinks premarital sex is a sin is having lustful thoughts, and they try to remedy this through :wub: rather than through sex with someone that they aren't really concerned for, which is the "greater sin"?

I think Jesus, precisely because he came to Earth in human form (with all its assorted baggage and trials) understood our dilemma perfectly, which is why he emphasized love, forgiveness, tolerance, and glory to God in all things. It only serves the devil to hate yourself and hate the God that gave you these feelings that cause you to hate yourself. To view him that way is to see life as an elaborate trap set up for us by God that we can never hope to win. The devil is the one who benefits and rejoices in your torment, whereas Jesus basically just says I am with you, and if you falter, I will forgive you and help pick yourself up. So love the body you were blessed with, and the incredible experiences and sensations he has provided for us, and do your best to love others.

At least, that is my philosophy. Good thread here though, I love theological stuff because I'm the first to admit my knowledge is imperfect and appreciate how we can all see things differently precisely because of our personal relationships with the Trinity.

short answer:
Catholic=Christian
Non-Catholic=Heretic

Hehe I hope your ancestors didn't invade my ancestors homeland of the Netherlands on the side of the Hapsburgs during the Religious Wars. I fart in the general direction of indulgences.

Merged double post, please use the edit button etc..

[Søren]

You don't seem to understand Christianity. You're ignoring what the Bible says about :wub: and premarital sex, so you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

Actually no. He is not suscribing to what (I for one) believe to be correct Christian doctorine - but that does not necessarly mean he is not a Christian - if you take the biblical view of Christianity.

To be fair though, I would agree that from what he has just said, it is quite possible that he is, in actual fact not a christian in the true sense of the word - but I would rather wait and see, rather than assuming too much.

p.s. I'll split this discussion.

[Tostig]

I would consider a Christian to be someone who believe in Christ and as trying to follow what they consider to be his message. However like most things in life (especially those concerning irrational personal beliefs) it isn't a case of black and white divisions. For instance when did the followers of Jesus cease being Jews and start being Christians?

[crazyj]

Thread split from "Update on my "Girl Problem"" -TBN



You don't seem to understand Christianity. You're ignoring what the Bible says about :wub: and premarital sex, so you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

Christianity means = follower of Christ

NOT = follower of other humans

For instance, Jesus basically said "throw out the Old Testament, I bring you something new, a new way to live" yet people still adhere or take too literally messages in the Old Testament.

Jesus said love your neighbor, not don't :wub:. God didn't give us sex organs which produce ridiculously pleasurable sensations just so we ignore them our whole life.

He made me, why would he object to use of the body he made? Thats like saying rubbing your elbows is wrong if you enjoy it. Its only appropriate for your life partner to rub your elbows.

Similarly, why kiss anyone but your wife or husband?

You guys are too literal minded, the Bible says don't judge, don't throw stones, because we ALL fall short of the glory of God. Thats why he sent Jesus, because we sin daily and we'd all be doomed if it was a one strike and you're out policy. Instead, our sins have been paid for and we simply need to accept his word and Truth. Instead, I see way too many Christians saying "He/she/you is going to hell for X reason" when in reality they have no idea just how far from Jesus's message they have strayed.

Say there is a girl having troubles in her life. You talk to her, brighten her day, make her feel good, maybe even pleasure her in different ways (not all sexually), making her life better and perhaps increasing her feelings of self worth so that she goes on to pursue her own dreams, and is less afraid or bothered by whatever problems she was having before. In other words, she is happier and because I haven't lied to her or led her on in a false way, doesn't resent me or obsess over me but has rather had her faith in men reaffirmed.

I think Jesus would give me a high five.


BTW, I'm sure some of you think this is "incorrect doctrine" but I bet some of you are Catholics, Orthodox, etc.

I'm a Lutheran baby, and in my interpretation God has made no man higher than any other. I don't need the Pope, I just see the wind in the trees while camping at Yellowstone to see God and feel happy about existence. Most importantly, if I am honest with myself and don't do things my conscience tells me not to, and I ask forgiveness from the people I have wronged, then there isn't much else I think Jesus would have me do.

[Ewan]

Jesus said love your neighbor, not don't :wub:. God didn't give us sex organs which produce ridiculously pleasurable sensations just so we ignore them our whole life.

He made me, why would he object to use of the body he made? Thats like saying rubbing your elbows is wrong if you enjoy it. Its only appropriate for your life partner to rub your elbows.
.

just because something feels gd is no justification for doing it. For example some people enjoy the *rush* of stealing yet it is still immoral to steal and more strangely some people enjoy killing yet it does no make it moral act.

Also you cant commit a sin just because you know your sins will be forgiving ( if your a christian) also being a christian means your abiding by the teachings of christ.

[Darth Wong]

How can Christians cite obedience to Levitical law and the writings of Paul as mandatory requirements of Christianity when virtually all Christians already ignore Levitical law routinely (see the prohibitions on wearing clothes made of two different materials or eating shrimp and lobster) and defy Paul as well, by allowing women to have positions of authority?

[Hodor]

Judging from my discussions with self-proclaimed "Christians", particularly Americans, you only need to have a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker on your car to qualify as a Christian - forget all that "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek"-stuff and follow the rules of LaVey satanism instead.

As for the Onan story:
Going by the excerpt, it seems more likely that he used coitus interruptus (i.e. pulling out before the ejaculation). Why would he :wub: when he was together with his wife? I'd say most people prefer a little privacy when :wub:.
I'd say the story is more of a warning against birth control.

[Ewan]

Judging from my discussions with self-proclaimed "Christians", particularly Americans, you only need to have a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker on your car to qualify as a Christian - forget all that "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek"-stuff and follow the rules of LaVey satanism instead.
.

and sadly they also think the more they use jesus's name the less they have to act like him

[crazyj]

How can Christians cite obedience to Levitical law and the writings of Paul as mandatory requirements of Christianity when virtually all Christians already ignore Levitical law routinely (see the prohibitions on wearing clothes made of two different materials or eating shrimp and lobster) and defy Paul as well, by allowing women to have positions of authority?

Did you read any of my previous posts?

As Christians, we are NOT obliged to be obedient to Levitical law. That is the whole point of the New Testament, and why being a Christian is following Christ, not Hebrew tribal law (much of which was designed to remedy problems of the day and is later misconstrued by misunderstanding context).

Please, part of why Lutheranism appeals to me is precisely because it calls for individual seeking and exploring of God's word, and a personal relationship with him, and not for slavish adherence to everything anybody in vestments ever came up with.

[mongoose]

Eh? I think that he was refering to Red Baron, not you...

[glorfindel87]

How can Christians cite obedience to Levitical law and the writings of Paul as mandatory requirements of Christianity when virtually all Christians already ignore Levitical law routinely (see the prohibitions on wearing clothes made of two different materials or eating shrimp and lobster) and defy Paul as well, by allowing women to have positions of authority?

Since Wong puts almost everyone's earlier comments in this nutshell, I'll answer this, not necessarily Wong.
Christians do not site obedience to Levitical law as a requirement to being a Christian, at least, not real Christians. As for Women having positions of authority, well, they are wrong, plain and simple. Only the "radical", "liberal" churches, who I don't believe are really Christian, do these things.
Most of you are wrong about the requirements in being a Christian.
There is ONE requirement.
1. Believe Christ died for your sins, rose again, etc.

THERE are NO requirements after that. Once a Christian, always a Christian.
BUT, as being a Christian, and trying to be more like Christ (perfect), there are some things that a real Christian couldn't do without feeling really bad, and eventually quitting. For instance, a Christian could do drugs, and remain a Christian. BUT since the Bible forbids anything that unneccisarily harms your body, a true Christian could not continue to do the drugs without feeling bad and trying to quit. Premarital sex is clearly forbidden in the Bible, I can't see how anyone defends it Biblically. And no we are not to JUDGE people, but, it's not JUDGING when a person clearly is sinning. "Judging" would be "assuming" said person was doing something wrong, or attacking someone over something they might not have had control of.
I think if common misconceptions about Christianity would get cleared up, and all the old fodgers would quit living on tradition instead of what their spiritual authority says in context, then Chrisitanity would be much less ridiculed, and more attractive.

Seriously...the whole idea is one of those blatant gray areas that most religions just *hate* to admit the existence of. It's a catch 22. On one hand the Bible says it shouldn't be tolerated, but on the other hand the Bible says love them anyways. This isn't just homosexuality either, this enters in plenty of other areas as well. It's also the major point that DWong has been driving home for god knows how long regarding on how, whether or not they like the thought of it, Christians *do* have to pick and choose from the Bible what their philosophy is and can't just take it all as a whole. There are just too many ideological conflicts in the books.

There are no grey areas, just areas people don't bother looking at the context for. The Bible says love the person, hate the sin. BUT, that doesn't mean continuing to be buddy-buddy with a guy who openly hates Chrisitanity and does everything wrong he can. You can still love him, but not agree with him, or let him influence you.

[Justinian]

just because something feels gd is no justification for doing it. For example some people enjoy the *rush* of stealing yet it is still immoral to steal and more strangely some people enjoy killing yet it does no make it moral act.

Are you seriously suggesting that :wub: and sex are a crime akin to stealing and murder? That has to be the most ridiculous argument against :wub: or sex that I've ever seen. Stealing is taking someone's hard earned property; are you suggesting wacking off and satisfying natural urges (which the man in the sky gave us, apparently) is akin to stealing from someone?

How about sex, is that like stealing? (OMG, she stole my sperm! )

As for killing... having sex with someone who wants it (a highly enjoyable act) cannot be sanely compared to ending another life.

[Sam]

I seem to remember a phrase that warned against "spilling your own seed", maybe that will ring a bell for someone.

[Mímirswell]

You don't seem to understand Christianity. You're ignoring what the Bible says about :wub: and premarital sex, so you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

Genesis 38: 6-10

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

Onan was struck down by God not for "spilling his seed" but instead for denying God's order to man to "be fruitful and multiply." Ever since it's been mischaracterized as anti-:wub: often called Onanism. Even if spilling his seed in this scenario was a crime it would not necessarily follow that :wub: was a crime since it's a different scenario and the Old Testament is very specific about how different circumstances with even minor differences can result in a death sentence or praise. Crazyj's analysis is correct.

Leviticus 15:16-18

When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

Another mischaracterization. The first is a clear example of :wub: but all the bible says is he should bathe and note that he is unclean until a certain passage of time occurs. It is not characterized a sin (clearly indicated by the latter portion of the passage referring to relations with a woman.)

In the New Testament, we have Romans 1:24, 2 Corinthians 12:21, and Galatians 5:19 that all use the greek words "akatharsia" and "akathartos", which mean roughly impure.

Romans 1:24

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Clearly involves others and thus isn't really applicable to :wub:.

2 Corinthians 12:21 and Galatians 5:19

I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery

Clearly ambigious and since repeated passages have excluded :wub: as merely unclean, there is no reason to think it's a sin in either of these.

A more damning claim of :wub: occurs with I Corinthians 6:9-11.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sexually immoral is actually written as "malakoi arsenokoitai." Malakoi means soft or fine but we actually don't know the original meaning of "arsenokoitai." Sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior while others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Either way, it doesn't actually include :wub: though quite a few bibles insert :wub: in its stead without even a footnote explaining that we have no indication that's such.

If anyone wishes to refute my evidence or provide evidence of their own; I welcome it.

Source: NIV Bible (for quotes) and Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary (for the greek word origins)