[ordinaryguy]

I used to believe that the Bible was the directly inspired word of God. I believed that Adam and Eve's sin corrupted the whole world and caused all people to be born into sin. I believed that God demanded death as the punishment for sin and that Jesus died to satisfy this demand and make salvation possible.

Now I believe that the Bible is a book of spiritual wisdom similar to many other such books in the world, but not the directly inspired word of God or the only true scripture. I can understand sin as separation or estrangement from our spiritual source, but I don't think death is the punishment for it, and I don't believe that Jesus' death was necessary to save anyone from it. I think he was killed because he attacked the idea that God has a "chosen people" and that membership in this group confers special spiritual benefits. Although he probably could have avoided being crucified, I think he decided to take it to the limit to make a point about the fruits of spiritual pride, arrogance and bigotry.

My question is, am I properly classified as a heretic, an apostate, a heathen, an unbeliever, or what?

[magprob]

To answer your question, you are simply another believer in what the dark powers want you and everyone else to believe. The greatest trick Satan has ever pulled off was to make everyone think he does not exist. Once people began to not believe in Satan, they question the existence of GOD and the reason Jesus came here in the first place. The New Age Movement is Satan at his best. They like to think of Jesus as just some spiritual wise guy in the ranks of Budda and others. Just look at the bible prophecy that has come to pass and ask yourself if Buddha, Krishna or any other book of religion has done the same.
You are being tested. Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and he did die and rise up after three days. ;)

[Starman]

My question is, am I properly classified as a heretic, an apostate, a heathen, an unbeliever, or what?

If you insist on being classified, which one would YOU choose? Personally, I think non Christian is the best since it is specific.

[ordinaryguy]

To answer your question, you are simply another believer in what the dark powers want you and everyone else to believe. The greatest trick Satan has ever pulled off was to make everyone think he does not exist.

Ah, "Spawn of Satan". I hadn't thought of that. I agree with Starman that you are very eloquent. But why do you think I believe that Satan doesn't exist? I certainly didn't say that.

You are being tested. Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and he did die and rise up after three days.

I have no doubt that Jesus died a gruesome death. I just don't think that a God who would demand such a macabre sacrifice as a condition of my salvation is worthy of worship. Jesus taught that "The Father himself loves you". If that's true, why would He insist on the death of an innocent person before forgiving my sins and healing the estrangement between us? It's out of character for a loving Father.

[ordinaryguy]

If you insist on being classified, which one would YOU choose? Personally, I think non Christian is the best since it is specific.

I think apostate fits best. Heretic carries a connotation of someone who wants to remain within the church but introduce unorthodox doctrine, whereas heathen connotes one who has never heard the gospel at all. Unbeliever doesn't quite fit, since I do have beliefs. I could live with non-Christian, though I do share some beliefs with orthodox Christians, for example, God is good.

[magprob]

I am sorry I couldn't play along with you and label you with one of the words of your choosing. What you fancy yourself as and what you really are are two completely different things. Since you have it all so well figured out though, why waste other peoples time buy asking the question in the first place. In less of course you just wanted to brag. Why you would do that I can't understand since nothing you have said impresses me.

[NeedKarma]

Just look at the bible prophecy that has come to pass and ask yourself if Buddah, Krishna or any other book of religion has done the same.

Which prophecy is that?

[magprob]

Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

[valinors_sorrow]

You could always do as I do and offer no classification at all, rather like John Lennon's Imagine song -- no label to defend, no doctrine to debate, no text interpretation to discuss, no camp to give credit to and ultimately no "them" or "us". I am a part of nothing and so I am also a part of everything, therefore I am! LOL Maybe your measuring stick just isn't long enough to measure "this" accurately, Ordinary Guy? Maybe (with hopefully all modesty still intact) this is what we are meant to evolve into and some of us somehow arrived "early"?

[NeedKarma]

Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

I wasn't aware that was accepted as fact.

[ordinaryguy]

I am sorry I couldn't play along with you and label you with one of the words of your choosing. What you fancy yourself as and what you really are are two completely different things. Since you have it all so well figured out though, why waste other peoples time buy asking the question in the first place. In less of course you just wanted to brag. Why you would do that I can't understand since nothing you have said impresses me.

OK, I'm busted. How to classify myself wasn't really the point.

What I really should have asked was "How, exactly, did the death of Jesus bring about salvation for anyone? Did it change God's mind, or convince Him to do something He couldn't otherwise be persuaded to do? Did it satisfy a legal requirement that God had decreed, but couldn't change or satisfy any other way? How is it possible to reconcile a requirement for the gruesome death of an innocent person with the idea of a loving heavenly Father?

I have yet to hear an explanation of this paradox that is coherent and satisfying. If you have one, I hope you won't find it a waste of your time to explain it. If you don't have one, or you do, but think that explaining it would be a waste of your time, feel free to ignore the question and spend your time on things that are more important to you.

[magprob]

I am no Bible Brain but I can give it to you the way I see it after hashing it around in my mind for nearly 50 years. There are other people on this post that know much more than I, Starman for instances, could probably give you a much clearer example but I will give you my take.
So here we are on this nice little planet trying to eat and survive and not get eaten. We have rough times sometimes and it is not always easy then, along comes this Divinly inspired book telling us we must love our fellow human beings, love ourselves and in general just do the right thing. Well, that can seem like a pretty tall order so we start wondering how this thing called GOD can dictate to us, in this harsh environment, when he is sitting on high, out of harms way in paradise. It's easy to give orders but no great leader ever orders his men to do anything he himself cannot or will not do. Coupled with all of that, there is the evil factor to deal with that may be a part of our nature or may be exterior or both, for the sake of argument. Well, how else could GOD prove that he, himself, could live as a human but do it in a perfect manner for all of humanity to observe and hopefully emulate? Enter Jesus. Some say Jesus is GOD himself in the flesh, some say he is the son of GOD, I say he is both and the same. But please let us not argue that point right now. The fact remains, GOD came to this earth and lived a simple life doing all good and was tempted by the very evil we are tempted by today and beat it. He was persecuted and murdered and to prove to us all that that is really not the worst thing that can happen to you, he arose after three days as the prince of peace. He told us that all of the things he did we can do and more. I, personally believe him and I know he is the way. He is the way because when he died, he showed us that there is eternal life for those that are worthy. For those that are not worthy, there is complete separation from the light, GOD. And that is not cruel, it is what they chose in this life when they should have been proving themselves worthy.
That is the best I can do and I hope Starman will add to this to reveal anything my simple faith cannot.

[magprob]

I wasn't aware that was accepted as fact.

Well I accept it. To whom were you refurring? :confused:

[ordinaryguy]

Well, how else could GOD prove that he, himself, could live as a human but do it in a perfect manner for all of humanity to observe and hopefully emulate? Enter Jesus. Some say Jesus is GOD himself in the flesh, some say he is the son of GOD, I say he is both and the same. But please let us not argue that point right now. The fact remains, GOD came to this earth and lived a simple life doing all good and was tempted by the very evil we are tempted by today and beat it. He was persecuted and murdered and to prove to us all that that is really not the worst thing that can happen to you, he arose after three days as the prince of peace. He told us that all of the things he did we can do and more. I, personally believe him and I know he is the way. He is the way because when he died, he showed us that there is eternal life for those that are worthy. For those that are not worthy, there is complete separation from the light, GOD. And that is not cruel, it is what they chose in this life when they should have been proving themselves worthy.

You seem to be saying that Jesus' life was intended as a demonstration of how to live a good life in a sinful world, but that it wasn't really a ransom sacrifice that was necessary to pay the "wages of sin" or satisfy the requirements of divine justice or anything like that. Just a good life for us to "observe and hopefully emulate". If that's what you're saying, it's a far cry from the doctrine of sin and salvation that I was taught. I like it better, actually.

I'm also mystified by your statement that his death and resurrection "showed us that there is eternal life for those that are worthy", and that those who are ultimately lost get that way because they spend their life doing other things, "when they should have been proving themselves worthy". This sounds like the doctrine of salvation by works, which I thought was rejected by most Christians. I thought none of us were worthy, and that's why we need salvation, which is a gift, and not something that we can prove ourselves worthy of. Do I misunderstand you?

[magprob]

If you deny Jesus as the Son of GOD, and as your Lord and Savior, you are not worthy. It is that simple. And yes, it was a demonstration by GOD of the correct way to live. Dying and rising in three days showed us that we can have eternal life.

[ordinaryguy]

If you deny Jesus as the Son of GOD, and as your Lord and Savior, you are not worthy. It is that simple. And yes, it was a demonstration by GOD of the correct way to live. Dying and rising in three days showed us that we can have eternal life.

So are you really saying that Jesus' life and death wasn't required in order to secure our salvation? That it was just a helpful demonstration that living a good life is possible? And that for all those who lived a good life before Jesus was born, his life and death had no relevance for their salvation since they managed to do it without the benefit of his demonstration? And of course, since they weren't in a position to accept or deny him as the Son of God and their Lord and Savior, their worthiness couldn't have had anything to do with that.

This is a very interesting and creative theory of salvation. I don't think it's biblical, but as I said, I like it better than the version I was taught.

[magprob]

Christ paid the full price. He died as a substitute for the man who brought death into the world. That gives him the right to bring life to who? The same folks who died in Adam.

[ordinaryguy]

Then stick to what you have been taught. Old habits are hard to break. Sorry I could not explain it in a way to help you. Maybe some better equiped in Bible knowledge can.

I'm not sure what you're telling me here. All I wanted was an answer to the question: "So are you really saying that Jesus' life and death wasn't required in order to secure our salvation?" It seems like a fairly straightforward question to me.

[ordinaryguy]

Christ paid the full price. He died as a substitute for the man who brought death into the world. That gives him the right to bring life to who? The same folks who died in Adam.

OK, I guess you deleted your previous post. I'd still appreciate an answer to my question. Was Jesus' life and death required as a condition of salvation, or was it just a helpful example for those of us who happened to be born later? Saying that he "paid the full price", and "died as a substitute" starts to sound like there was something imperatave about it. Are you changing your story?

[Starman]

OK, I guess you deleted your previous post. I'd still appreciate an answer to my question. Was Jesus' life and death required as a condition of salvation, or was it just a helpful example for those of us who happened to be born later? Saying that he "paid the full price", and "died as a substitute" starts to sound like there was something imperatave about it. Are you changing your story?

Magprob is saying that Jesus did both. He set an example for us and made salvation possible for us. You are already familiar with these concepts and remain unconvinced. Correct?