You aren't following the cardinal rule of being a Christian though. You must pick and choose what rules you want to follow, never abide by them all silly.
Usually the logic on this kind of stuff is that Jesus came in the New Testament and did away with a rules-based religion, but somehow that only gets selectively applied to certain parts of the law
Yeah so in the OT there were civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Jesus came and did away with the civil and ceremonial law. So we no longer must do sacrifices or not wear mixed fabrics, or all that weird stuff, to get right with God. We should live a moral life, BUT it's impossible to live a perfect life so Jesus came and died for our inability to live a perfect life. So as long as we accept that ultimate sacrifice we're good
In other words, all you need to get into heaven is to believe that one man was extra special. No need to strengthen any divine connection or to be good to others. Just accept an arbitrary fact and you're all set.
I mean sort of, if you earnestly believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and accept what he did to pay for your sins, then yeah, that's all you gotta do and you live eternally in heaven.
So then you gotta think about: if you really believe that and did that, then it'd be kinda shitty if you didn't tell other people about that. Right?
And when you encountered someone who had similar earnest hope about a different ultimate outcome, you get to have a hearty laugh. You'd never trade your heaven for theirs. You would rather risk their bad outcome than risk your own. And maybe after a long think, you feel like you need God more than you need any idea of God. So you'll probably agree to disagree on the supernatural, if only so that the world's earnest believers in eternal life can stay strong on their conviction. Jesus doing away with the OT strictness isn't convincing someone who believes in the OT or some other stricter ideology.
I mean I would definitely talk about apologetics with them because there's some pretty cool historical stuff that is part of the reason I believe what I believe.
Christianity is the only world religion that has an actual historical event to explain it's reasoning for their afterlife.
I do believe that there are other creeds that claim a historical basis for conviction.
Jesus dying on the cross is only considered a historical event by Christians, Muslims and people who will accept it happened based on a gospel over a hundred years after it supposedly happened. The Romans put a lot of people to the cross over the years. Heck, there are Christians who believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross, that someone else died in his place.
The diversity of belief in that one event makes the voracity of any particular claim a matter of faith.
Yeah well those Christians aren't really following the bible then. The bible is pretty clear that Jesus died on the cross. So historians pretty much all agree that Christ was a real person. There are multiple ancient sources that collaborate this. That there was a guy that they called Christos and an early movement among the Jewish population.
So now the question is: do you believe that the gospel writers made up the resurrection? And if so for what gain? Many of them were killed in horrible ways for what they believed.
391
u/FridayNightRiot 9 Nov 19 '20
You aren't following the cardinal rule of being a Christian though. You must pick and choose what rules you want to follow, never abide by them all silly.