Topic: If 'God'... | |
---|---|
Well then MS, what is the "age of consent" exactly to get inside heaven? Will two burly angels be carding at the gates?
|
|
|
|
Well then MS, what is the "age of consent" exactly to get inside heaven? Will two burly angels be carding at the gates? It's sad when intelligent adults resort to sarcasm and childish taunts simply because he or she has run out of arguments. |
|
|
|
I dont think I have spider, I have not heard your rebuttal to my last post so I was taking a break.
|
|
|
|
I dont think I have spider, I have not heard your rebuttal to my last post so I was taking a break. Krimsa, I feel that I want to waste my time with that post. You changed the subject to more conspiracy theories. First Council of Nicea was about addressing a heresy with a very small following. Jesus was already considered divine! Both sides of the argument agreed that Jesus was divine, but the Arian side believed that Jesus was a created god, not the God. I think that I have fully defended my position: the salvation of non-Christians is possible from a scriptural standpoint. Both you and Tribo are being unnecessarily argumentative, sarcastic and unfair. If you want to have this conversation, I think you should both change your demeanor. Surely this isn't how you talk with your Christian friends? Mocking their beliefs and taunting them? I'm appealing to your sense of decency to act in a more appropriate way when having a discussion. I'll leave it to you to decide. |
|
|
|
I dont think I have spider, I have not heard your rebuttal to my last post so I was taking a break. Your reply to MS was taunting and sarcastic. If you want to pretend otherwise, that is between you and your conscience. I know that my conscience would be burning me if I had made that post and then claimed it wasn't taunting or sarcastic. |
|
|
|
I dont think I have spider, I have not heard your rebuttal to my last post so I was taking a break. Krimsa, I feel that I want to waste my time with that post. You changed the subject to more conspiracy theories. First Council of Nicea was about addressing a heresy with a very small following. Jesus was already considered divine! Both sides of the argument agreed that Jesus was divine, but the Arian side believed that Jesus was a created god, not the God. I think that I have fully defended my position: the salvation of non-Christians is possible from a scriptural standpoint. Both you and Tribo are being unnecessarily argumentative, sarcastic and unfair. If you want to have this conversation, I think you should both change your demeanor. Surely this isn't how you talk with your Christian friends? Mocking their beliefs and taunting them? I'm appealing to your sense of decency to act in a more appropriate way when having a discussion. I'll leave it to you to decide. I did not change the subject. What are you talking about. I offered historically accurate information. If you are "stumped" then bow out tactfully. I have been nothing but civil and debated accordingly. Pfft. I dont even know if I have Christian friends because we would not be so silly as to dwell on such things in real life. Meany. |
|
|
|
the old testament people were saved by their faith in god - who is god?? father - SON - HS. they knew him as the christ, not as jesus, therfore they entered heaven because of this. christ=jesus [or any other name used for him then].
No, Jesus didn't say that. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.". You are quoting Acts 4:12 "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved".
But that doesn't change what I have said. I don't believe that Jesus' name is a magic word. Therefore, name must mean something else, right? semantics- bottom line is there is no way to come to heaven but through Christ - period[excluding those who do not have the wherewithal to do so - children, handicapped etc.] Yes. Now how encompassing that belief is, I can't say. But Abraham didn't know Jesus, but he was saved. Knowing the name isn't necessary. The criteria aren't laid out in detail in the Bible. The surest way to heaven is by accepting Jesus. The other way might lead to heaven, but probably leads to hell. I can't say, I'm not the judge. But the Bible leaves plenty of possibility that people can go to heaven regardless of their religion.
it leaves NO possibility!! whether its by the name of Jesus/Christ/savior/ or the myriad of other names OT or NT- it is the same personage!! the SON of god!! the NT Jesus!! if Jesus is "THE ONLY WAY" and he himself states this to be so - then what hope is there for those who don't? Paul's words? there not even clear on this - Jesus WAS!! believe and live in heaven - don't and die and be in hell. pretty cut and dry. Right, Jesus said he is the only way. But would he accept someone who was spiritually blind? Yes, he said so himself. "If you were blind, you would be without sin" Is it possible that a person who isn't spiritually blind could go to heaven, without accepting Jesus? It's possible, but that's for God to judge. Obviously God knows that not many can do that, so he died for our sins.
does it not say that Christ died for "EVERYONES SINS"? that it is a matter of accepting him for salvation and heaven? you make no point here at all. QUOTE: your holding out false hope for your own agendas to those who do not believe this. you may think its true - but it is not. its excruciatingly plain to anyone who reads what the choice is. There are many Christians who hold to this belief. Pastors on a Christian radio program (To Every Man An Answer) have verbalize the same belief. The pastors at STR (Stands To Reason) ministries have also suggested that a non-Christian who has never heard of Jesus could go to heaven. We aren't lying, the Bible does suggest this. Jesus assured the people that if they were blind they would be without sin.
read further down on this point tribo: QUOTE: yet you would have others believe if they lead a good life their is hope. you go against the very foundation of Christianity spider, that which you claim to follow and believe. No, it doesn't. Paul was a pillar in the Church. Jesus is the foundation of the church. Both suggested that some non-Christians would be saved. I don't know how many and I don't know that you can be saved by your actions, it is the condition of your heart. I imagine it will be rare for a non-Christian to go to heaven, but it will be fairly uncommon for a Christian to go to heaven also.
You are listening and quoting those who want to further their own agendas of peace between all mankind just like the catholics did for centuries, bring em in however you can mentality. tell them there's hope but yours is a better way? not buying it. its evil!! What I have said is supported by many Christians.
AGGENDIST!! "5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
So let's see...there are around a billion Catholics in the world, so tell me Tribo, where do you get off saying that they are all going against their religion? Isn't it true that it is YOU who is wrong? You who are twisting the scriptures to support your bigoted, biased and closed minded view of Christianity? as i say AGENDIST principles. sat whatever is necessary to make your point based not on the book but those preachers/priest/others who you choose to believe and push forward there statements to comfort yourselves with. i have a bridge i'd like to sell you - interested?? no I'm sure your not - it would not me your agenda. |
|
|
|
NOBODY goes to Heaven when they die.There is NO afterlife.Only resurection.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 11/28/08 02:59 PM
|
|
MorningSong touched on this point, but I want to make sure it's clear. Abraham thought that Issac would be resurrected after he was killed. Abraham thought that because of God's promise to him. So Abraham was willing to kill his son if God commanded because he believed that Issac would be brought back to life. Not only was God testing Abraham's obedience, but he was also testing his trust in God. Did Abraham trust God to keep his promise? Abraham was tested and was not found wanting. If Ted Bundy had complete faith that every innocent person he was killing would be resurrected bye God, would that make what he was doing ok? I would like to know HOW exactly do you think God command Abraham to do this? Everyone is always talking about how God said this or God said that or God told someone to do something but how did God do this? A voice from a cloud? A voice in the guy's head? A burning bush? What? Or did Abraham just dream it all up? In this day and age we call that psychotic when people hear God (or voices) telling them to do something. I had a friend who was psychotic and on medication who confided in me that these demons and voices kept telling him to do terrible things. He said when he refused to do as they told him they told him that he was breaking his agreement with them. I had only known this guy for a few months when he suddenly died of a brain aneurysm. He was only 35 years old. Are we talking about faith that is psychotic in nature or actual faith based upon a promise from God?
Abraham didn't kill Issac, did he? No, Issac was saved by Malech Yahweh (Jesus). How can you say that? Jesus/Yahwah did not save him. Suddenly Abraham found some other creature he could kill so he decided himself that it would be sufficient to kill that goat rather than his son. But God had not told him to kill a goat. God told him to kill his son. Therefore wasn't he disobeying God then? And it wasn't the fact that Abraham had faith in God that made his attempted slaughter of Issac a good thing, it was the fact that Abraham had been commanded by God to carry out that action.
How does that make it a good thing? And how did God command Abraham to do that? If Abraham hadn't had faith, he wouldn't have attempted to kill his own son.
So from this statement I would say that faith is not such a good thing. If Abraham had faith, but wasn't commanded by God to kill his son, then that would be tempting the Lord, which the Lord reacts poorly to.
How would that be tempting the Lord? As Jesus told Satan "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God!". So the conditions were very specific, not the general scenario that you gave. Abraham didn't just have faith, but he had a promise and a commandment directly from God.
How did Abraham know his commandment was directly from God? How did he actually receive this commandment? Better yet, how do you know it was a commandment from God? Better yet, how do you know Abraham was not psychotic? Oh yeh, I forgot, because it is written. ... in the Bible.. and the Bible has to be true because it is the word of God. And you choose to believe it. okay... mind if I pass? I don't believe a word of any of that. It's all propaganda made up stuff. jb |
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 11/28/08 03:09 PM
|
|
MirrorMirror My Friend........the Bible says, "To be ABSENT from the BODY , is to be PRESENT WITH the LORD." Gotta run.... Love You All.... Be Blessed Now EverOne!! |
|
|
|
MirrorMirror My Friend........the Bible says, "To be ABSENT from the BODY , is to be PRESENT WITH the LORD."[color] |
|
|
|
I found this in Numbers.12:6
"If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will ... speak unto him in a dream." Now there's a reliable way to communicate with someone! |
|
|
|
MirrorMirror My Friend........the Bible says, "To be ABSENT from the BODY , is to be PRESENT WITH the LORD." Gotta run.... Love You All.... Be Blessed Now EverOne!! Not necessarily true. Take it from one who has done out of body travel. |
|
|
|
I found this in Numbers.12:6 "If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will ... speak unto him in a dream." Now there's a reliable way to communicate with someone! |
|
|
|
Tribo,
I never once said that someone could go to heaven based on works. Neither did the Catholic church. I was clear on that matter. It is the condition of the person's heart, not their actions that determines their salvation. The same is true of Christians and non-Christians. That's what the Bible says and at least 50% of the Christian world agrees with that. I think you are needlessly rude. You are the swine or dog described in Matthew 7:6. I have been polite and offered you reasoned arguments and scripture and you have rejected them out of hand and accused me of lying and having an agenda. You should be ashamed of your behavior. You probably are, but can't get over your pride enough to say so. But because I believe know that in your heart you want to apologize, but you can't overcome your pride and your shame at admitting you are wrong, I will assume you have apologized and moved on. Enjoy your weekend. |
|
|
|
"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
Ben Franklin- - letter to his father, 1738 This leads me to believe that Franklin felt that we would be judged by our deeds and not our religious course per se or how we defined ourselves in this life. He was a Deist or most historians tend to believe that he was. Deists do not reject the concept of a "creator" but just not the biblical "lord". More a natural, functional god. |
|
|
|
Tribo, I never once said that someone could go to heaven based on works. Neither did the Catholic church. I was clear on that matter. It is the condition of the person's heart, not their actions that determines their salvation. The same is true of Christians and non-Christians. That's what the Bible says and at least 50% of the Christian world agrees with that.
are you sure it's not 49% or 51% meaningless numbers unsupported by you another false statement and still means nothing as to whether anyone outside of those jesus says will go to hell is true. I think you are needlessly rude. You are the swine or dog described in Matthew 7:6. I have been polite and offered you reasoned arguments and scripture and you have rejected them out of hand and accused me of lying and having an agenda. You should be ashamed of your behavior. You probably are, but can't get over your pride enough to say so. But because I believe know that in your heart you want to apologize, but you can't overcome your pride and your shame at admitting you are wrong, I will assume you have apologized and moved on.
when i feel it's necessary to apologize i have always done so without solicitation from someone to do so by trying to make me feel unwarranted remorse of some kind spider - your wrong and your sources are wrong, you live with that - i dont have to.
Enjoy your weekend. 1) nazi demon from hell 2) stealer of childrens souls 3) godless A**hole 4) hellish troll 5) and now - swine/dog gee thnx spider, you just made my day - |
|
|
|
Edited by
martymark
on
Fri 11/28/08 04:46 PM
|
|
It is real simple folks, do mean and hurtful things to other people and don't ask for the Lord God Almighty, The Creator to absolve your transgressions against others and self through the teachings and the sacrifice of the Son of God, and YOU WILL BE JUDGED by God Almighy. Whether or not that means there is a hell or not and whether you will go there ,I DON'T KNOW, I AM NOT GOD! As far as these silly questions that are really nothing more than insults in disguise, well I would feel pretty confident in saying, GOD PROBOBLY DOESN'T LIKE THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. I really get tired of trying to teach the same simple idea to the same small group of thread mongers every time I get on the religion threads on this site! If you just do not agree then say so and let it go. The people of the christian faith do not keep logging into the atheist and other forms of religion threads and asking questions that are actually insults in disguise. SEE YA
|
|
|
|
Thats a lame question sorry.
|
|
|
|
Marty I think you are able to change your settings if you want to only be able to see "Christian Friendly" forums. You dont have to participate in "General Religion" where the policy here is open discussion and debate.
|
|
|