Thank God He Was
Published on January 29, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
What if Jesus Christ was never born? What would it be like here and in the rest of the world? Would it make a difference at all? It is a thought provoking question isn't it? What if Jesus had never been born?

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in politics. Our representative form of democracy rests on explicitly Christian principles of church and state. So do our principles of free speech and religious tolerance. In fact, the very founding of this nation was motivated by the goal to establish a Christ-centered community. If Jesus was never born, there wouldn’t be a United States of America, at least as we know it today.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in education. The world’s oldest universities were all founded on Christian principles, so that students could grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same is true of nearly every one of the first one hundred colleges and universities in America. Eventually people would have developed institutions of higher education, but there would be no Oxford, no Harvard, no Yale, and no Princeton. Furthermore, Christians have always been pioneers in promoting literacy and universal education. Even America’s public school system is part of the legacy of Puritan education. To this day, linguists are working all over the world, in the name of Jesus, to put native languages in written form and teach people to read the Bible.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in literature, music, and the arts. There would be no Messiah for Handel to write into his famous oratorio—no Christmas music at all. There would be no Pieta by Michelangelo, and no Last Supper by Leonardo. There would be no cathedrals in Europe, no Hagia Sophia or Notre Dame. There would be no Gospels and no New Testament, and therefore no story of the prodigal son, no parable of the good Samaritan, and no Sermon on the Mount. There would be no Divine Comedy by Dante, and no Paradise Lost by Milton.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in science and medicine. It was the Christian worldview—with its insistence on the rational order of the universe and man’s dominion over creation—that gave rise to modern science. Followers of Jesus Christ were also pioneers in the art of medicine. The first hospitals were established by Christians who believed they had a God-given responsibility to heal the sick.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in charity and the protection of life. It was the followers of Christ who first introduced the Roman world to disinterested benevolence, to helping someone who couldn’t help you in return. Pagans were amazed to see that Christians not only took care of their own needy people, but also provided for other people’s poor. It was also the followers of Christ who first abandoned the nearly universal practice of infanticide. The birth of Christ taught them to protect the lives of their own children, and to rescue foundlings and orphans.

Humanly speaking, none of this would have happened if Jesus was never born. What I have said so far is only just the beginning, of course, and it is also true that many wrong things have been done in the name of Christ—that is a topic for another occasion. But simply in terms of secular history, the life of Jesus Christ has had a far greater and more positive influence on the world than anyone else in history.

But to bring what I have said closer to home, if Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make to your own destiny. You would have no atonement for your sin, no resurrection from the dead, no hope of eternal life, and no Savior to call a friend.

What if Jesus was never born? But Jesus was born. As the angel said to the Christmas shepherds: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:12). And the rest, as they say, is history.


Link


Comments (Page 3)
14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jan 31, 2008
And that would be something that would mesh quite nicely with scripture or the words of Jesus.


Well since Buddha came way before Christ, and taking into consideration what started all of this, how is that possible? The premise you've been defending is that there is no solely human-centric drive to be good without a personal God and Jesus.

Let me quote it exactly since it's in another thread.

I said:

What I hear you saying is that without your belief to hold you up, your life is worthless


and you quoted that and replied straight to it:

Pretty much. If this is all there is then this is indeed a sad state of affairs. What purpose does it serve? If this is all there is to the world then who cares if we're good or bad?


I have provided you with one who cared about whether he was good or bad. He came before Jesus. I offer this as substantiating evidence to my theory that a person can be good without knowing a personal god or acknowledging Jesus as his son.

I am still interested in your answer to another of my questions from the other thread. I shall quote it as well.

You surely admit there ARE examples of true believers that commit all manner of egregious acts on other humans as well as atheists that live clean lives relative to these believers, no?
on Jan 31, 2008
I have provided you with one who cared about whether he was good or bad. He came before Jesus.


Not quite Ock. When Jesus came he came in fulfillment of the OT scriptures. He was God in the flesh. Pretty much the NT is the OT revealed. ALL of the scripture Christ quoted came directly out of the OT, much of it from Moses who wrote in 1400 BC. That was WAY before Buddha walked this earth.

Besides. Christ created Buddha. He even said he was there before Abraham and we know Buddha wasn't before Abraham. So you didn't read what I gave you on deity afterall? How do you know that Buddha wasn't aware of the OT scriptures that was most certainly around when he lived?

You surely admit there ARE examples of true believers that commit all manner of egregious acts on other humans as well as atheists that live clean lives relative to these believers, no?


I did answer this somewhere. Notice how you phrased it tho. Why not the other way around? Why not say there are examples of true believers that commit all manner of good and kind acts on other humans as well as atheists that live awful sinful lives relative to those believers?

It's your bias showing Ock.

But to answer you directly. Yes. I do believe that there are Christians who sin. Maybe even do something very wrong. I also do believe there are nice moral type of atheists out there. I have met both types of these people. But I will say that the true Christians that do these terrible awful things are not the majority and I will say that the atheists that are out that you describe there are not in the majority either. When we read of the murders and rapes and other atrocious crimes believe me they are not thinking of God while doing this. Most, if not all that we read about in the papers are not godly people. Most are atheists with no belief at all.

See it's like this Ock. When you become a Christian you are God centered. It's like Christ, as our example would say...."not my will but yours." An Atheiest doesn't have such a moral code. Since they don't believe in God, it would be quite normal for them to say "My will be done." It certainly isn't going to by "thy will."

You're a Buddhist thinking person and I'm a Christian Centered person and we are not going to agree on this Ock. Although I do see some crossover from Buddhism to Christianity that I can't deny. There are some good things there that we can agree on. But I believe it's truth mixed with error and I know who's behind it. And I'm not talking Buddha.

on Jan 31, 2008
[quote]Yes Sodaiho I would respectfully disagree with you. Religionists maybe, Christians, no. Hitler for example was an extreme hater of the Jews. Some may say he was a Christian because he was brought up Catholic. Many Catholics did turn their backs on the suffering Jews. Some didn't. Those who helped the Jews (and many Christians did) are the true Christians. Those who were the anti-semites were NOT Christians. They couldn't be. I'd suggest you go back and look at all the Christians who did help the Jews during WWII.


Dear KFC, I have no wish to argue history with you, two thousand years not just a few decades. Here is link for you to read in depth as regards this topic.

WWW Link
on Jan 31, 2008
And another:

WWW Link

And another:

WWW Link
on Jan 31, 2008
I've told you before, I do believe you have a very big bias against Christianity and I know it's based on those "bad" Christians (if you can call them that) you've had experience with. I wished you'd look past that to the bigger picture of what Christianity is really all about and not believe the lie.


Yes, you have pointed this out. The fact is, I do look past these episodes, but as most Jews I know, I am ever-vigilent. History has amply demonstrated that vigilence as regards Christians is warranted. I believe there are very good people who happen to be Christian. I also believe there are millions of Christians who behave badly. You would deny that they are true Christians. Perhaps. But is doesn't help the mission of the Church, does it, to have masses of followers attend on sunday and go about doing all manner of evil as they leave the Church steps?

I repeat what I said earlier and what Ock has been saying with penetrating clarity: good pre-exists Jesus of Nazareth.

Your argument that Jesus pre-exists everything is true, but then so did Buddha, you, I. As Jews, we believe God is the first and the last; as Buddhists, we hold that our Original Nature, what we call Buddha Nature, is the first and the last; they are the same. If you can get past your need to find refuge in a label, i.e., "Christian" then you will be able to realize the universal truths of all faiths. If you cannot you will remain stuck in the mud of what Buddhists call ignorance (the delusion of duality).

Be well.
on Jan 31, 2008
But is doesn't help the mission of the Church, does it, to have masses of followers attend on sunday and go about doing all manner of evil as they leave the Church steps?


No it doesn't and I agree. Some think they are fooling God with their saintly Sundays while reaping the devil's wages all week. It's one of my very big pet peeves. I would love to see more church discipline regarding these types of things. We are not doing what we should be doing in the churches. We have lost our way. I'm afraid tho that most churches nowadays are not anything like the early church wished them to be. For one thing, they are NOT following the mandates of scripture.

good pre-exists Jesus of Nazareth.


so doesn't bad with even more frequency. Have you ever read the Hebrew scriptures of the Kings and Judges? I think those books give a good history of what the world was like before Christ. There were a few good kings but the majority were not only bad, but evil. And Sodaiho they were all Jewish.

If you can get past your need to find refuge in a label, i.e., "Christian" then you will be able to realize the universal truths of all faiths. If you cannot you will remain stuck in the mud of what Buddhists call ignorance (the delusion of duality).


I believe Jesus when he said he was the truth, way and life. He proved it with his actions with eyewitness accounts, and unless someone can show me he lied or did not do what he said he did, I have no choice to follow the God who opened my eyes to this truth.





on Jan 31, 2008
Eightfold Path.

Wisdom
1. Right view
2. Right intention
Ethical conduct
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
Mental discipline
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration


Lula posts:
Let's dig a little deeper. On what did Buddha base his notion of what "Right" is?


Ock posts:
Well, I wasn't going to give Buddha lessons, because as the Buddha taught, everyone must work it out for him/herself. But the premise is that there are 4 "noble truths" which deal with personal suffering and the cessation of it. Thus "right" is not determined until suffering has successfully been stopped. If somehow I work it out that a particular method of juggling kittens ends suffering, then "right kitten juggling" would be a part of my solution. The eight things listed were what worked for the Buddha. "Right" is what works.


Sodaiho posts:
What a fascinating thread developing here. Ock, Zoo, great stuff regards the Buddha, Lula, KFC, I bow to your courtesy. Asking he source of the good is like asking the source of the Infinite. They are the same: life and its eternal processes.


OCK posts:
Well since Buddha came way before Christ, and taking into consideration what started all of this, how is that possible? The premise you've been defending is that there is no solely human-centric drive to be good without a personal God and Jesus.


OCK, which came first, God's definition of "right" and "Good" or Buddha's?

To do right for right's sake implies that right ought to be done. Why ought it to be done? Ought or must supposes some kind of law. All law derives its force from the right of the lawgiver. To do right for right's sake pushes us back to doing right for the sake of the SUpreme Author of all right. No one can do right for right's sake if he ignores God, for without God he cannot prove that what he thinks to be right IS right or has any binding force at all.

on Jan 31, 2008
I did answer this somewhere. Notice how you phrased it tho. Why not the other way around? Why not say there are examples of true believers that commit all manner of good and kind acts on other humans as well as atheists that live awful sinful lives relative to those believers?


I was trying to make a point...one that keeps escaping you. And for now, I give up. I think I realize it's not a point you will allow yourself to even look at. That's fine - I'll leave it be.

Lula:
To do right for right's sake implies that right ought to be done.


Not necessarily. Once upon a time, doing what was "right" was a matter of survival of the species. If I pushed the food gatherer of my family off the cliff, we all get really hungry (for example). Some basic concepts of things that help our lives and things that hurt them can be learned strictly from experience. Even plain ole stub your toe pain teaches a version of right and wrong. The human brain is quite capable of expounding upon things that cause greater and lesser pain and suffering without intervention or existence of a deity. It's behavioral science.

OCK, which came first, God's definition of "right" and "Good" or Buddha's?


It's an irrational question. I do not have proof of any deity's existence and neither do you. I don't even necessarily believe all I read about the Buddha. To me it's just more ancient texts written by who knows who with who knows what agenda. I prefer Buddhism, however, because what I have read makes scientific naturalist sense to me (the explanations given for consciousness coming from the activation of the senses, for example.) I also like it because it doesn't proselytize.

KFC, same goes for the Christ creating Buddha statement. I'd love to discuss it further, but it's impossible. Your only points come from a book I don't believe is wholly true, and since at this point I find it impossible to unveil the veracity of it, I can't entertain it as a source of irrefutable truth in a discussion of this nature.

As far as reading what you gave me on deity, I did. And I didn't find what I was looking for - an explicit statement from Jesus saying "I am the son of God" or "I am divine." Don't get me wrong - the implication is clear, but those specific words aren't there. I was seeking this due to something I read that a Muslim wrote and was curious.
on Jan 31, 2008
and unless someone can show me he lied or did not do what he said he did, I have no choice to follow the God who opened my eyes to this truth.


Ever heard of the Celestial Teapot? I googled it to quote for you>

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. ~Bertrand Russell

Ciao
on Jan 31, 2008

Please provide the reference in your scripture where it says Christ created Buddha, or is this just your interpretation that you are passing off as fact? Also, how do WE know that Buddha was not before Abraham? More of your interpretation stated as fact?


Well, by all y'all's definitions concerning the world, Satan, and Christ himself, that should be enough. You say that Christ created everything, even the angels. Well, Buddha was a human, and if all humans were created by Christ, then Christ created Buddha. Maybe I misinterpreted something from previous conversations, but that's what I'm getting. Oh well.
on Jan 31, 2008
Ever heard of the Celestial Teapot?


Oh, Bertrand Russell...you just wanted space tea, you British philosopher, you.

That's a great quote, by the way.

~Zoo
on Jan 31, 2008
Leauki posts: #26
I never understood why Christians stopped waiting for the Messiah. If Jesus was the Messiah, he will have to come back and rebuild the Temple. He forgot to do that the last time he was here. Until he comes back and rebuilds the Temple, he is not yet the Messiah, not per the "old law" definition, which allegedly identified the Messiah and hence legitimises the "new law".


KFC posts:
Because the Messiah came already. We are still waiting for him to return after the fullness of the Gentiles comes to a close tho. THere is nowhere in scripture that we're told HE will build a temple again.


Christ does mention the Temple but as you say, KFC, not ever in reference to Him reguilding it.

He did predict the Temples demise though(in 70AD), St.Matt. 24:1-2,
"Jesus left the Temple and was going away, when his disciples came to show Him the buildings of the Temple. And He answering, said to them, "Do you see all these things (the Temple)? Amen, I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be destroyed."

Right after Christ cast the money changers from the Temple and the Jews asked Him why He did this. Christ spoke of raising "it" up (the Temple), "it" referred to His own Body as the Temple. When some Jews demanded a miracle of Christ as proof of His authority, He said, referring to His Body, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. St.John 2:19.

The Divinity of Christ is proved by His words, by His deeds, and by His prophecy.
1--In the Temple and in the presence of many leading Israelites, Christ distinctly declared Himself to be the Son of God, calling the Temple the house of His Father. If God be His Father, Hemust be God the Son.
2-- Christ proved His Divinity by the power and majesty of His righteous indignation when He drove the buyers and sellers from the Temple.
3--He showed His Divinity or more exactly, His omniscience, by distinctly foretelling that the Jews would kill Him (destroying the Temple of His body), and that He would raise His dead Body to life again on the 3rd day.

This was more plainly stated when the Scribes and the Pharisees requested a sign of His Messiahship. "...A sign (would be given) of Jonah the prophet, for even Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." St.Matt. 12:40.

I could go on....

on Jan 31, 2008
See it's like this Ock. When you become a Christian you are God centered. It's like Christ, as our example would say...."not my will but yours." An Atheiest doesn't have such a moral code. Since they don't believe in God, it would be quite normal for them to say "My will be done." It certainly isn't going to by "thy will."

You're a Buddhist thinking person and I'm a Christian Centered person and we are not going to agree on this Ock. Although I do see some crossover from Buddhism to Christianity that I can't deny. There are some good things there that we can agree on. But I believe it's truth mixed with error and I know who's behind it. And I'm not talking Buddha.


  
on Jan 31, 2008
OCK POSTS: #32
You surely admit there ARE examples of true believers that commit all manner of egregious acts on other humans as well as atheists that live clean lives relative to these believers, no?


I posted a reply to this on the other thread as well...

No doubt, there are many without a belief in Christianity who give in their lives examples of moral conduct. It isn't new that a system of ethics can exist without a religion as in the case of Greek philosophers and rationalists while the ethics of Buddhism adapts or entwines themselves around the religion of the countries where it penetrates.


So, how do/why/what makes unbelievers distinguish good from evil, right from wrong? Where does there sense of moral obligation come from?

I would suggest that Someone implanted that understanding in us, the laws of physics can't. In doing good conduct, you are most probably answering your voice of conscience hardwired by God for your own good. In doing good, in not being a serial killer, thief or child rapist, in being honest,ethical, and moral, you are in practice applying God's commandment of love. Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute standards and Someone competent to set those standards. That Someone is God who is our Beginning and our Last End.




on Jan 31, 2008
ASAXYGIRL POSTS:
I do not need the laws of man or the laws of religious scripture to make the choices in my life to alleviate suffering or to cause no further suffering. All people have it within themselves, if they are of sound mind and not suffering from mental disease that would prevent their ability to choose, to choose actions that are kind, compassionate and borne from love.


I agree. We are hardwired with that something that is within ourselves. Everyone of us has a sense of right and wrong. We know interiorily when we are doing wrong. Something inside rebukes our conduct. We know we are going against an instinctive voice. It's the voice of conscience dictating to us a law we did not make and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other people know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, and condemning us afterward.

The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver. God alone could do this.
14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last