Eternal Security

[Nicholas]

And because of gravity we all have to stay down. The only way to defeat gravity in physics, is to follow laws of flight, if you do it any other way, you'll come back down. Yet, do we hear physics protesting or rolling their eyes that this is the way reality is?

 

First, I was rolling my eyes at your position, not reality. I was rolling my eyes at the idea that you support a community of exclusion, which is completely opposite to what Christ sought to build. Christ taught us to love our neighbor, not make our neighbors more like us. Christianizing people is not the answer.

 

The reality is that you don't love your neighbor, you want your neighbor to move in.

 

Second, remember that gravity is only a theory.

 

Ghandi is not perfect enough to meet God's standard, only Jesus was that perfect. The Bible teaches that no person living from Adam to now, except Jesus, was ever perfect enough to make it. It is not about 'trying' to be a Christian, because if you are 'trying' then you are probably not saved and relying on works.

 

No, I meant what I said. Ghandi *tried* to be a Christian, but they would not allow him to enter a Christian church because he wasn't of a high enough caste.

 

Regardless of whether he professed a belief in Christ, his actions are among the most Christian in human history. I think he deserves to be saved, if such a proccess exists. Your arguments against his merit (or, against merit in general) only amplify my distaste for your understanding of the salvation proccess.

 

"Christ died for me, not Ghandi," isn't exactly sticking to my bumper.

 

However, nobody is good enough to meet God's standard.

 

We're all good enough to meet God's standard. We were created in his image, and there is nothing but good there.

 

Good works, with disobedience, well, is improper.

 

Good works IS obedience. Christianity is just one belief system, among many out there. If you're still following its doctrines without being a member of that culture, how are you disobeying God?

 

Everybody, even if they have done all the good things in the world like Ghandi, probably has a secret vice or some type of sin. You wouldn't know i history if he molested an 8 year old girl, or whatever...but it is possible. Would all the good that he has done, perhaps justify a potential hidden sin like that, or perhaps another sin?

 

Two hypothetical situations:

 

(1) A christian molests an eight year old girl, repents, and goes to heaven.

 

(2) Ghandi doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior, but lives a good life. He doesn't get to go to heaven, because he theoretically could have molested an eight year old girl because of the sinful nature of human existence.

 

Your interpretation of the salvation docrtine threatens me because I feel it builds a community of exlusion in Jesus' name. Why does the idea of Ghandi in heaven threaten you?

[Admiral Thrawn]

And because of gravity we all have to stay down. The only way to defeat gravity in physics, is to follow laws of flight, if you do it any other way, you'll come back down. Yet, do we hear physics protesting or rolling their eyes that this is the way reality is?

 

First, I was rolling my eyes at your position, not reality. I was rolling my eyes at the idea that you support a community of exclusion, which is completely opposite to what Christ sought to build. Christ taught us to love our neighbor, not make our neighbors more like us. Christianizing people is not the answer.

 

If you love your neighbour, then you'll let him or her know that their house is on fire. It is not about Christianizing, it is about saving people from drowning in their own sins. If you are indifferent or hate your neighbour, you would just stand back and let everybody go to their respective destination.

 

The reality is that you don't love your neighbor, you want your neighbor to move in.

 

It does not matter whether the neighbour moves in or not, but everybody deserves to know the truth.

 

Second, remember that gravity is only a theory.

 

Something is keeping us down.

 

Ghandi is not perfect enough to meet God's standard, only Jesus was that perfect. The Bible teaches that no person living from Adam to now, except Jesus, was ever perfect enough to make it. It is not about 'trying' to be a Christian, because if you are 'trying' then you are probably not saved and relying on works.

 

No, I meant what I said. Ghandi *tried* to be a Christian, but they would not allow him to enter a Christian church because he wasn't of a high enough caste.

 

You have to differentiate between 'nominal' Christianity and 'authentic' Christianity if this discussion is really going to go anywhere. Just because there is a Christian 'label' on something does not necessary mean it is 'authentically' Christian.

 

Regardless of whether he professed a belief in Christ, his actions are among the most Christian in human history. I think he deserves to be saved, if such a proccess exists. Your arguments against his merit (or, against merit in general) only amplify my distaste for your understanding of the salvation proccess.

 

However, the fact is you do not personally know Ghandi. You only know about what he accomplished, so you wouldn't know what he really did.

 

"Christ died for me, not Ghandi," isn't exactly sticking to my bumper.

 

Christ died for Ghandi too. If Ghandi received Jesus Christ before he died, then he too is in heaven. He likely did, as I'm sure there were some missionaries in India, or there were Bibles circulating around, right?

 

However, nobody is good enough to meet God's standard.

 

We're all good enough to meet God's standard. We were created in his image, and there is nothing but good there.

 

We are created in Adam's image. We have mutated and are evil. We are now a renegade race.

 

Good works, with disobedience, well, is improper.

 

Good works IS obedience. Christianity is just one belief system, among many out there. If you're still following its doctrines without being a member of that culture, how are you disobeying God?

 

It is not that simple, because it does not account for disobediance, and it does not right wrongs. You cant go to court and fight a charge by bringing up irrelevant facts, unrelated to a case, about how 'good' you are in other areas of life, and expect a case to be dismissed, right?

 

If anyone has accepted Christ, and is saved, regardless of their culture or original religion, then they are in obedience to God.

 

Everybody, even if they have done all the good things in the world like Ghandi, probably has a secret vice or some type of sin. You wouldn't know i history if he molested an 8 year old girl, or whatever...but it is possible. Would all the good that he has done, perhaps justify a potential hidden sin like that, or perhaps another sin?

 

Two hypothetical situations:

 

(1) A christian molests an eight year old girl, repents, and goes to heaven.

 

(2) Ghandi doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior, but lives a good life. He doesn't get to go to heaven, because he theoretically could have molested an eight year old girl because of the sinful nature of human existence.

 

Your interpretation of the salvation docrtine threatens me because I feel it builds a community of exlusion in Jesus' name. Why does the idea of Ghandi in heaven threaten you?

 

Again, I do not know if Ghandi has received Christ and is in heaven. Nobody is excluded from accepting Jesus as his or her own saviour. Therefore, there is no community of exclusion.

 

In fact, it is the world that is building a community of exclusion against Christians, it is actually a two way street. Christianity is the most attacked faith in Hollywood - just see how many times the Lord's name is used in vain. People who believe that there is one way of salvation are negatively branded in society as a whole. Just look at the negative response that I have received for just maintaining a position of 'one way to be saved', so it is the other way around in terms of exclusion.

[Nicholas]

If you love your neighbour, then you'll let him or her know that their house is on fire. It is not about Christianizing, it is about saving people from drowning in their own sins.

 

You see anyone who is not "christian" like you as drowning in their own sins.

 

How many people have you saved from their own sins? How many people say, "Wow, thanks for telling me how wrong my religion is, I suppose I'll follow yours now,"

 

You have to differentiate between 'nominal' Christianity and 'authentic' Christianity if this discussion is really going to go anywhere.

 

Oh, yeah. Let's do the Scotsman thing.

 

Just because there is a Christian 'label' on something does not necessary mean it is 'authentically' Christian.

 

No kidding! Now if you'd only accept the inverse--Just because something lacks a Christian label doesn't mean it's not 'authentically' Christian.

 

However, the fact is you do not personally know Ghandi. You only know about what he accomplished, so you wouldn't know what he really did.

 

I do know that he respected the teachings of Christ, and, more importantly, lived them. To me that has more value to the Kingdom of God than the divisive nature of your ministry.

 

Christ died for Ghandi too. If Ghandi received Jesus Christ before he died, then he too is in heaven. He likely did, as I'm sure there were some missionaries in India, or there were Bibles circulating around, right?

 

I already explained the situation regarding Ghandi and Christianity.

 

They did not allow him to enter a Christian church because he was not of a high enough caste. Getting saved is easier in the midwest than it is in India.

 

We are created in Adam's image. We have mutated and are evil. We are now a renegade race.

 

There was no Adam before Creation. God created man (man = Adam, look it up, this wasn't always in English) in his own image. That's scriptural, unlike the business about mutation.

 

You cant go to court and fight a charge by bringing up irrelevant facts, unrelated to a case, about how 'good' you are in other areas of life, and expect a case to be dismissed, right?

 

I would hope that our soul isn't judged the same way our criminal defendants are, but there's no need to speculate on the imaginary, so I won't argue this point.

 

If anyone has accepted Christ, and is saved, regardless of their culture or original religion, then they are in obedience to God.

 

You can accept Christ without accepting Christianity. In that regard, there are plenty of Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and atheists on their way to heaven.

 

Christianity is the most attacked faith in Hollywood - just see how many times the Lord's name is used in vain.

 

To me "Oh my God" is less of an attack on Christianity (and, more importantly less of a breach of the commandment prohibiting the taking of the Lord's name in vain) than this:

 

Nobody is excluded from accepting Jesus as his or her own saviour. Therefore, there is no community of exclusion.

 

You're using the Lord's name for your own vanity, there's no way around that. It's a pecuilar brand of elitism that markets itself as accessible, and then acts like they're doing you a favor by "witnessing" to you.

 

People who believe that there is one way of salvation are negatively branded in society as a whole.

 

I'd like to see more of that. Maybe, eventually, they'll stop.

[grace2005]

To say that all religions lead to God and are basically saying the same thing is a religious belief and opinion in and of itself. To say that there is no right or wrong is also an opinion in itself. When you tell someone that it is wrong to judge, that very statement itself is a judgement.

 

To those who say that there are many versions of truth & all truth is relative, can they be absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth??? To those who say we can't be sure about the afterlife, are you absolutely sure that we can't be sure about the afterlife???

 

The ecunumeical movement is a movement that tolerates all religions except christianity because it teaches only one way to God which is through Jesus Christ. So the ecunuemical movement preaches about bringing all religions together as saying the same thing but they do not get along with those who believe in one way to God.

 

Ecunumeists do not practice what they preach. Seems as though the ecunuemicals condemn christians for not embracing their belief system. Ecunuemicalism is a separate religion in itself even though they believe all religions are saying the same thing.

[Nicholas]

To those who say we can't be sure about the afterlife, are you absolutely sure that we can't be sure about the afterlife???

 

Yes. I'm positive you can't be certain about the afterlife. The very nature of it prohibits emperical data on it--you have to be dead to find out.

 

As for your judgment of my belief system, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a Christian. As far as afterlife enthusiasts are concerned, I'm safe.

[quankanne]

Christ died for Ghandi too. If Ghandi received Jesus Christ before he died, then he too is in heaven. He likely did, as I'm sure there were some missionaries in India, or there were Bibles circulating around, right?

 

I thought it was about being pure in spirit and loving God – no matter HOW you practiced that love (i.e., religion) is what merits heaven. Not everyone knows about Christ, yet that doesn't mean they automatically go to hell. There are many folks out there who are non-Christian who lead lives that are modeled on the very things Christ asks of us, namely to love each other and to love God. Because in loving one another, we're nodding to that higher power, we're emulating his love even though we may not be aware of him at that point. My thought is that it all begins in God, who created us in his image, and it all comes back to him: along the way, we have the right to accept or reject him. To say that only those who profess Christ merit salvation is misleading. He died for everyone, believers and non-believers alike; his death is meant to save us by "connecting" us to the Father. If someone already believes in and loves God and tries to live by his laws, but isn't Christian, that doesn't mean he's bumped to the back of the line when it comes to heaven ...

[Admiral Thrawn]

If you love your neighbour, then you'll let him or her know that their house is on fire. It is not about Christianizing, it is about saving people from drowning in their own sins.

 

You see anyone who is not "christian" like you as drowning in their own sins.

 

How many people have you saved from their own sins? How many people say, "Wow, thanks for telling me how wrong my religion is, I suppose I'll follow yours now,"

 

I've seen plenty of direct evidence of people telling me that they have found Christ, or that they were drowining in vice sins but Jesus delivered them from all their addictions and problems. There is too much direct, circumstantial and ancedontal evidence. If you just go to a Spirit-filled church, that believes the Bible is the true Word of God, and you are seeing people saved, Baptised in the Holy Spirit, healings, etc... then you will be in the right environment. You will never understand properly until you go to a proper church. So, why dont you go one Sunday and see for yourself?

 

It is obvious that you will likely be very skeptical of television Evangelists anyway, so go to the real church and talk to people who are there. Most people I give this challenge to are more intrested in winning their arguement than actually seeing for themselves with an open mind, and I trust you will probably be the same.

 

However, the fact is you do not personally know Ghandi. You only know about what he accomplished, so you wouldn't know what he really did.

 

I do know that he respected the teachings of Christ, and, more importantly, lived them. To me that has more value to the Kingdom of God than the divisive nature of your ministry.

 

But you dont know anything that he may have done in secret. You are presupposing he lived a perfect life. I postulated a hypothetical challenge where he molested an 8 year old girl, or had some sort of wicked vice. Well, would all his good make that ok somehow if that were true? You never answered that question.

 

The Bible says, every single person, except Jesus Christ, has sinned, and come short of the glory of God, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags.

End of story. Ghandi sinned, and his righteousness is also like filghy rags in accordance with scripture as far as God's standard is concerned.

 

Christ died for Ghandi too. If Ghandi received Jesus Christ before he died, then he too is in heaven. He likely did, as I'm sure there were some missionaries in India, or there were Bibles circulating around, right?

 

I already explained the situation regarding Ghandi and Christianity.

 

They did not allow him to enter a Christian church because he was not of a high enough caste. Getting saved is easier in the midwest than it is in India.

 

Right, and I already explained the situation between 'authentic' and 'nominal' Christianity, which is a crucial point that you have just scoffed out, so I dont really see this discussion going anywhere. If you think Christianity is all about going to church and warming a pew bench (or even doing something in it) then you are dead wrong.

 

We are created in Adam's image. We have mutated and are evil. We are now a renegade race.

 

There was no Adam before Creation. God created man (man = Adam, look it up, this wasn't always in English) in his own image. That's scriptural, unlike the business about mutation.

 

Adam is the first created being. Before he sinned he was in God's image. After he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he became his own image, as well as his progeny. The mutation occurred after the fruit was ingested.

 

Originally, man and woman was created to live forever, able to walk nude without being ashamed, and was in perfect communion with God, all that changed when the forbidden fruit was ingested. The fact that people die totally refutes your position.

 

You cant go to court and fight a charge by bringing up irrelevant facts, unrelated to a case, about how 'good' you are in other areas of life, and expect a case to be dismissed, right?

 

I would hope that our soul isn't judged the same way our criminal defendants are, but there's no need to speculate on the imaginary, so I won't argue this point.

 

No, if you are basing something on 'good' and 'bad' works, I'm saying, 'good' works do not cancel 'bad' deeds. If a 'bad' deed is enough to make someone go to hell, then a 'good' deed is not going to cancel it. The 'bad' deed has to be purged to cancel the effect, and it is not 'purged' by a corresponding 'good' deed. The Bible says it is 'purged' by the Blood of Jesus Christ, and 'without the shedding of blood', there is no remission of sin.

 

If anyone has accepted Christ, and is saved, regardless of their culture or original religion, then they are in obedience to God.

 

You can accept Christ without accepting Christianity. In that regard, there are plenty of Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and atheists on their way to heaven.

 

You mean there are plenty of former Buddist, Hindus, Moslems and atheists on their way to heaven, who accepted Christ and got saved.

 

Christianity is the most attacked faith in Hollywood - just see how many times the Lord's name is used in vain.

 

To me "Oh my God" is less of an attack on Christianity (and, more importantly less of a breach of the commandment prohibiting the taking of the Lord's name in vain) than this:

 

No, most Hollywood movies actually say the name "Jesus Christ" and often in a deragatory context or in substitute for a profanity. It is interesting that they wont attack Allah, or any other religion, but specifically Christianity.

 

Nobody is excluded from accepting Jesus as his or her own saviour. Therefore, there is no community of exclusion.

 

You're using the Lord's name for your own vanity, there's no way around that. It's a pecuilar brand of elitism that markets itself as accessible, and then acts like they're doing you a favor by "witnessing" to you.

 

It seems that you are not taking this discussion seriously. I'm going by what the Bible says.

 

People who believe that there is one way of salvation are negatively branded in society as a whole.

 

I'd like to see more of that. Maybe, eventually, they'll stop.

 

Maby what will stop, a belief that you do not like? Looks who is talking about tolerance?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Christ died for Ghandi too. If Ghandi received Jesus Christ before he died, then he too is in heaven. He likely did, as I'm sure there were some missionaries in India, or there were Bibles circulating around, right?

 

I thought it was about being pure in spirit and loving God – no matter HOW you practiced that love (i.e., religion) is what merits heaven. Not everyone knows about Christ, yet that doesn't mean they automatically go to hell. There are many folks out there who are non-Christian who lead lives that are modeled on the very things Christ asks of us, namely to love each other and to love God. Because in loving one another, we're nodding to that higher power, we're emulating his love even though we may not be aware of him at that point. My thought is that it all begins in God, who created us in his image, and it all comes back to him: along the way, we have the right to accept or reject him. To say that only those who profess Christ merit salvation is misleading. He died for everyone, believers and non-believers alike; his death is meant to save us by "connecting" us to the Father. If someone already believes in and loves God and tries to live by his laws, but isn't Christian, that doesn't mean he's bumped to the back of the line when it comes to heaven ...

 

Those who actually receive Christ are justified by what Christ did on the Cross on their behalf, and that in itself merits salvation. Sin has to be purged by the blood of Jesus.

 

If someone truely believes and loves God they will seek, find and accept Jesus as their Savior, on their own, and make a pubic profession that Jesus is their Lord and Savior. Cornelius was a good guy, who was eventually saved in the book of Acts after receiving Christ. If someone wants the truth, they will find and receive Christ.

 

When people think they are too 'good' to receive Christ, which should really be the crux of your concerns, then they are going to miss the boat - in that case, God's free offer of salvation was 'too good for them', because they were too good in their own eyes to accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and repent of their sin.

 

People who are good may have hidden sins, fears, jealousy, pride, lust, etc... the point of salvation is change in ownership from the devil to God, where Jesus pays the slave redemption price, otherwise one is a slave to sin. The Bible says that there is actually no good person that meets up to God's perfect standard of what 'good' is. They may meet up to a human standard, but that is still not good enough.

[grace2005]

Admirial is absolutely correct. If you are going to preach tolerance then you need to practice what you preach. That includes being tolerant of those who do not agree with your philosophy of tolerance of all religions. The ideaology of tolerance of all religions is a religion in itself.

 

I find that those who preach "do not judge" are the most judgemental people on the face of the earth. To tell us that we have no right to judge is a judgement in itself. So you are just as guilty of passing judgement as you say we are.

 

How come nobody curses Buddah or Allah or Muhammed after hitting their thumbs with hammers? But they curse God or Jesus Christ. People find it offensive when we talk and praise God & Jesus but we christians also find it offensive when we hear people curse Him & use His name in vain. In our dark modern society it's alright to curse God but not alright to praise God because afterall you might offend someone.

[loony]

Ugh, just one comment on a joke and you are subscribed to this [censored].

[Admiral Thrawn]

Amen! Grace2005 - right on!

[Nicholas]

I've seen plenty of direct evidence of people telling me that they have found Christ, or that they were drowining in vice sins but Jesus delivered them from all their addictions and problems. There is too much direct, circumstantial and ancedontal evidence.

 

People say the same thing about their respective religions. Hell, alcoholics say it about AA. Because some people turn their lives around with the help of Christian resources does not in any way prove the supremacy of Christian evangelicalism.

 

As for your church recommendation, it's not neccessary. It's not that I'm closed minded, I just already have a church I'm plenty happy with.

 

But you dont know anything that he may have done in secret. You are presupposing he lived a perfect life. I postulated a hypothetical challenge where he molested an 8 year old girl, or had some sort of wicked vice. Well, would all his good make that ok somehow if that were true? You never answered that question.

 

I didn't answer the question because it's not mine (or yours) to answer. You never answered my question--does the Christian child molestor who repents go to heaven over Ghandi?

 

Right, and I already explained the situation between 'authentic' and 'nominal' Christianity, which is a crucial point that you have just scoffed out

 

I scoffed at it because it's genuinely fallacious.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Adam is the first created being. Before he sinned he was in God's image. After he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he became his own image, as well as his progeny. The mutation occurred after the fruit was ingested.

 

The mutation occured after the fruit was ingested, huh? I'd be interested to hear your reconcilliation of the firmament. Did God destroy it shortly before Sputnik?

 

You mean there are plenty of former Buddist, Hindus, Moslems and atheists on their way to heaven, who accepted Christ and got saved.

 

No, that's not what I mean.

 

No, most Hollywood movies actually say the name "Jesus Christ" and often in a deragatory context or in substitute for a profanity.

 

I don't think that's taking the Lord's name in vain so much as what you're doing here. I see vanity all over your post.

 

It is interesting that they wont attack Allah, or any other religion, but specifically Christianity.

 

Writing "Jesus Christ" as a profanity into a script is not an attack on Christianity, it's a recognition of its pervasiveness in Anglo-saxon culture. If people just said "Allah" out of nowhere, english speaking audiences wouldn't really understand it.

 

I'm going by what the Bible says.

 

I have a twenty-two caliber pistol trained on my Bible right now. It's not saying anything. It never says anything. My Bible, like all Bibles, are silent.

 

Text doesn't "say" anything--it must be TRANSLATED, then INTERPRETED, and then UNDERSTOOD. If you don't have the proper translation, interpretation, and context--then you're not equipped to read the text.

 

Maby what will stop, a belief that you do not like? Looks who is talking about tolerance?

 

When did I preach tolerance? I don't tolerate fundamentalist Christianity. I think it's the most harmful force in human history.

 

Admirial is absolutely correct. If you are going to preach tolerance then you need to practice what you preach. That includes being tolerant of those who do not agree with your philosophy of tolerance of all religions.

 

This tolerance business is a straw man. If I tolerated fundamentalism, I wouldn't post about how dangerous I think it is.

 

The ideaology of tolerance of all religions is a religion in itself.

 

I don't think it is. I'm a Christian. That's my religion. Just because I accept most other religions doesn't mean that I'm abandoning my religion.

 

How come nobody curses Buddah or Allah or Muhammed after hitting their thumbs with hammers? But they curse God or Jesus Christ.

 

They probably do in the middle east. The reason people in English curse "God" (which is hardly a Christian trademark) or "Jesus" is because most English-speaking peoples are predominantly Christian. That's numbers, not discrimination.

[Admiral Thrawn]

But you dont know anything that he may have done in secret. You are presupposing he lived a perfect life. I postulated a hypothetical challenge where he molested an 8 year old girl, or had some sort of wicked vice. Well, would all his good make that ok somehow if that were true? You never answered that question.

 

I didn't answer the question because it's not mine (or yours) to answer. You never answered my question--does the Christian child molestor who repents go to heaven over Ghandi?

 

It is a very important question, because you are still presupposing that Ghandi did not have a secret life that you dont know about. The answer to your question is yes, a child molester who repents and truely receives Christ, or a Christian who has fallen into sin and repents, goes to heaven over all the good works of Ghandi. Why? Ghandi's righteousness is based on his own. The repentant Christian's righteousness is based on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is perfect. Ghandi is imperfect. Therefore Ghandi does not make it.

 

Right, and I already explained the situation between 'authentic' and 'nominal' Christianity, which is a crucial point that you have just scoffed out

 

I scoffed at it because it's genuinely fallacious.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

The Christian church institution in India that rejected Ghandi was not truely Christian, and it is not likely any of their members were saved. When people reject someone on the basis of race, socio-economic status, etc... they are rejecting Jesus Christ directly. Thus, no white churches, no black churches, which discriminate against people are valid.

 

You mean there are plenty of former Buddist, Hindus, Moslems and atheists on their way to heaven, who accepted Christ and got saved.

 

No, that's not what I mean.

 

They can not have the cake and eat it too. The Bible says, on the First Commandment, that there shall be no other god's before the true God.

No Idolater shall enter heaven. False religions are idolatry.

 

If you think God is slack with Idolatry, read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, so you can see what God's attitude was to people who worshipped other gods.

 

No, most Hollywood movies actually say the name "Jesus Christ" and often in a deragatory context or in substitute for a profanity.

 

I don't think that's taking the Lord's name in vain so much as what you're doing here. I see vanity all over your post.

 

You can not understand spiritual things with a carnal mind. That is your problem, carnal reasoning doesn't work.

 

It is interesting that they wont attack Allah, or any other religion, but specifically Christianity.

 

Writing "Jesus Christ" as a profanity into a script is not an attack on Christianity, it's a recognition of its pervasiveness in Anglo-saxon culture. If people just said "Allah" out of nowhere, english speaking audiences wouldn't really understand it.

 

It is a breach of the 2nd commandment, not to take the name of the Lord in vain. It is actually quite a strong commandment because it says, the Lord will not hold the person 'guiltless' who takes His name in vain. If you are going to mess with any commandment, you wouldn't want to mess with this one the way it is phrased.

 

I'm going by what the Bible says.

 

I have a twenty-two caliber pistol trained on my Bible right now. It's not saying anything. It never says anything. My Bible, like all Bibles, are silent.

 

Text doesn't "say" anything--it must be TRANSLATED, then INTERPRETED, and then UNDERSTOOD. If you don't have the proper translation, interpretation, and context--then you're not equipped to read the text.

 

That is the problem, you are seeing it as some sort of dead text. It is alive, it is breating, it is spiritual food and water, not some sort of ancient text.

You cant understand the Bible with the 'natural' or 'carnal' mind. The 'natural' or 'carnal' mind sees things differently from the quickened 'spiritual' mind.

 

The ideaology of tolerance of all religions is a religion in itself.

 

I don't think it is. I'm a Christian. That's my religion. Just because I accept most other religions doesn't mean that I'm abandoning my religion.

 

Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.

 

How come nobody curses Buddah or Allah or Muhammed after hitting their thumbs with hammers? But they curse God or Jesus Christ.

 

They probably do in the middle east. The reason people in English curse "God" (which is hardly a Christian trademark) or "Jesus" is because most English-speaking peoples are predominantly Christian. That's numbers, not discrimination.

 

Or because the devil controls the world-system, and the media (which is part of the world system), as the Bible says, and wants to desicrate its arch-enemy.

[Nicholas]

It is a very important question, because you are still presupposing that Ghandi did not have a secret life that you dont know about.

 

The burden of proof is not on me. Ghandi is a pervasive icon of goodness in modern history. If you want to assassinate his character, you'll have to produce some evidence of his secret life.

 

Ghandi's righteousness is based on his own. The repentant Christian's righteousness is based on Jesus Christ.

 

Why isn't Ghandi's based on Jesus Christ? Why must you pronounce the name of Jesus in order to receive him? He is culturally incompatible with many humans, is that Jesus's fault, or the fault of his modern-day followers?

 

They can not have the cake and eat it too. The Bible says, on the First Commandment, that there shall be no other god's before the true God.

 

Buddhism does not involve God worship. Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship identical Gods--the God of Abraham. What makes Christianity supreme, besides Christianity's own doctrine of supremacy?

 

You can not understand spiritual things with a carnal mind. That is your problem, carnal reasoning doesn't work.

 

It doesn't get more carnal than interpreting the commandment to mean you can't say "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. There's no profound spiritual analysis there.

 

That is the problem, you are seeing it as some sort of dead text.

 

It's not a POV question. There is no other way around it, without submitting to severe schizophrenia. Regardless of the "living" nature of the text, it cannot intepret itself.

 

Once again : Text must be translated, interpreted, and understood. If you lack a good translation, understanding, or context, then you might as well not read it at all.

 

Or because the devil controls the world-system, and the media (which is part of the world system), as the Bible says, and wants to desicrate its arch-enemy.

 

Yeah, I suppose there's that.

[Admiral Thrawn]

It is a very important question, because you are still presupposing that Ghandi did not have a secret life that you dont know about.

 

The burden of proof is not on me. Ghandi is a pervasive icon of goodness in modern history. If you want to assassinate his character, you'll have to produce some evidence of his secret life.

 

Do I now? Well, the Bible says his righteousness is like filthy rags. The Bible says everybody's righteousness is like filthy rags, so that includes Ghandi.

 

Ghandi's righteousness is based on his own. The repentant Christian's righteousness is based on Jesus Christ.

 

Why isn't Ghandi's based on Jesus Christ? Why must you pronounce the name of Jesus in order to receive him? He is culturally incompatible with many humans, is that Jesus's fault, or the fault of his modern-day followers?

 

In your example or arguement, you are basing Ghandi's righteousness in his good works and legacy, not on Jesus Christ, remember, Ghandi is 'too good' to receive Christ so he doesn't need him or need to be saved because he is 'good' enough to make it. Isn't that what you were trying to say?

 

They can not have the cake and eat it too. The Bible says, on the First Commandment, that there shall be no other god's before the true God.

 

Buddhism does not involve God worship. Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship identical Gods--the God of Abraham. What makes Christianity supreme, besides Christianity's own doctrine of supremacy?

 

Buddism has a Buddha. People bow down to it, and have incense candles.

Muslims "Allah" is based on an old 'moon-god' that Mohammad based his religion on. Well, Jews, they stoned their prophets, crucified their Messiah, and are pretty much, for the time being, spiritually cut-off unless they accept Christ.

 

Did you ever ask yourself, why there is a crescent 'moon' associated with the Islamic faith? I'm sure you have not done a throughouh research into each of these religions.

 

But I think we are missing the point here, Jesus said, He is the only way to the Father, the truth and the life. And the Bible continually shows that you can not circumvent Jesus to connect with God. If you to directly to God without Jesus, then you may as well be an idolater.

 

 

You can not understand spiritual things with a carnal mind. That is your problem, carnal reasoning doesn't work.

 

It doesn't get more carnal than interpreting the commandment to mean you can't say "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. There's no profound spiritual analysis there.

 

You really need to be born-again in order to understand the Bible because you obviously are not discerning the scripturally spiritually.

 

That is the problem, you are seeing it as some sort of dead text.

 

It's not a POV question. There is no other way around it, without submitting to severe schizophrenia. Regardless of the "living" nature of the text, it cannot intepret itself.

 

Once again : Text must be translated, interpreted, and understood. If you lack a good translation, understanding, or context, then you might as well not read it at all.

 

If you dont have the interpretation of the Spirit, you are wasting your time.

That is why you do not understand the Bible is because you need to be saved, so your mind will be illuminated by the Spirit of God. You will understand what I am saying once you are born-again, and your spiritual blinders are removed.

[Nicholas]

Do I now? Well, the Bible says his righteousness is like filthy rags. The Bible says everybody's righteousness is like filthy rags, so that includes Ghandi.

 

Assertion : Ghandi had a secret private life of sin.

Support : The Bible says his righteousness is like filthy rags.

 

That doesn't follow.

 

In your example or arguement, you are basing Ghandi's righteousness in his good works and legacy, not on Jesus Christ, remember, Ghandi is 'too good' to receive Christ so he doesn't need him or need to be saved because he is 'good' enough to make it. Isn't that what you were trying to say?

 

No, my argument is that he already received Jesus Christ because of his actions, not because of the words he says or the necklaces he wears or the Church he attended.

 

Muslims "Allah" is based on an old 'moon-god' that Mohammad based his religion on.

 

Muslims teach that the Angel Gabriel, the same one who revealed Jesus to Mary, revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammad. The God of Muhammad's tribe is the same God of the Jews, and the same God of Christians, the God of Abraham. That's just history, not speculation.

 

Did you ever ask yourself, why there is a crescent 'moon' associated with the Islamic faith?

 

It has zero to do with Islam's origins. The crescent emerges in the 1450's. Legend associates it with a dream that Osman (founder of the Ottoman Empire) had, considering the crescent moon a good omen, which is why it was used by that dynasty. The Ottoman Empire was, for centuries, the dominant political force in the Muslim world. Considering the crescent star to be a symbol of Islam is not accurate, though it is understandable how one could be confused.

 

Islam actually has no symbol, and modern Muslims often reject the crescent because of its Pagan origin.

 

I'm sure you have not done a throughouh research into each of these religions.

 

No you're not sure of that.

 

But I think we are missing the point here, Jesus said, He is the only way to the Father, the truth and the life.

 

The question I'm presenting is whether or not rejection of Christianity is a rejection of Christ.

 

You really need to be born-again in order to understand the Bible because you obviously are not discerning the scripturally spiritually.

 

One birth is enough for me.

 

I consider my Biblical scholarship comprehensive (down to an understanding of the original Greek and Hebrew), but never complete. Lately your posts have become more vague as to what advantage your brand of scholarship has over mine--simply relying on the abstract fact that you consider yourself able to transcend "carnal understanding" in favor of a vague "spiritual understanding", without any description as to what that is.

 

Essentially you just packaged your brand of evangelical fundamentalism as the best way to understand scripture, by use of the word spiritual. I can do the same thing, watch: My understanding of the Bible is awesome. In order to discern scripture awesomely, you have to think like I do.

 

That is why you do not understand the Bible is because you need to be saved, so your mind will be illuminated by the Spirit of God.

 

My experience with people who consider themselves saved is the opposite of an illuminated mind. It's really just a closed mind, with a narcissistic superiority complex to boot.

 

You will understand what I am saying once you are born-again, and your spiritual blinders are removed.

 

Being born again is an imaginary proccess that, when all is said and done, simply means to submit to your way of practicing Christianity. That said, I'll pass.

[Chris777]

You can not accept something you know nothing about.

 

So those who don't know Jesus are damned to hellfire then? Way to get the message.

God is fair. The Bible Does not tell us exactly what happens to those who are born and never hear the gospel, however since we know he is fair and just, We will have to just accept his judgement on them, becsuse we know it will be righteous

What about Ghandi? He tried to be a Christian, but the Christians wouldn't let him.

Gandhi rejected christianity, and as to the "christians" you are refering to, Did they have the fruit of a christian, or the fruit of a thorn bush?

you yourself claim to be a Christian, why do you do so if you really believe that those who rejected Gandhi were in fact true and genuine christians?

 

Instead of realizing they were wolves amongst sheep, he rejected christianity, and therefore Christ all together , and if he had in fact read the bible, he would have known that their are people who claim to be christians, yet they do not believe , or follow the very source of knowledge about it.

 

He went on to be one of the greatest Christians ever, without ever submitting to Christianity.

how can he be something that he himself denounced?

 

If you get to go to heaven, but Ghandi doesn't, then that speaks a lot about the nature of your God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to come across as believing that deeds, behavior,and motives, are what makes a person a christtian. When the bible explains that it is a person who is repentant of their sins, and believes that Jesus is the savior. and ask him to save them, because he is the only one who can.

The "exclusiveness" and "Exclusion", that you and others reguard as evil, is in fact the very definition of Christian, being in fact a follower of Jesus, rather than Mohammed, or buddah, or the dali llama, or yes in fact Gandhi.

 

The belief that their are "many paths" to God, and that "Good works" somehow earn you , the price of admission, is not found in the Bible.

We as mankind Do not know how to get to heaven on our own.

Jesus Is our Guide.

 

Think about it, If Jesus was in fact. who he claimed to be (and I personally believe he was) then why would he even bother to come down out of heaven at all? Not only that, but he came down to be tourtured, and killed to atone for our sins. Sins that He did not deserve. Now why is it that, he would do something so painful, and humiliating, if heaven were such an easy place to gain access to?

Another thing about it is that If Jesus did not deserve crucifixion, why would Gandhi deserve heaven? Especially when he slapped the hand of God away from him, when it was offered, in the form of Jesus?

I have a hard time believing God created us to test whether or not we'll submit to one of his religions, hoping desperately (with our mortal soul on the line) that we chose the correct one.

why do you believe he created them all? When in fact, it Could be Satan, the Adversary of God, who created them to be in direct competition with the one truth. (Christianity)

these competing "religions" all oppose christianity in some form or another. and Draw people away from the truth of christianity.

And whether you believe that or something else, you have got to admit it is an extremely effective tactic, in that the confusion caused from it causes everyone to go in circles for large portions of their lives. From a militaristic point of view it is one, of the most effective tactics that can be employed, by throwing the opposig force into disarray, while he sweeps in for the finish.

 

Good Works, with or without the decoration of faith, save people here on Earth. They help bring about the Kingdom of God without waiting until we die.

What makes you believe this?

any works that we do in this world are temporary. Yes it is a wonderful thing to feed , clothe, and house your brothers and sisters.

but eventually you all will die, and the things you did will either be forgotten, or vanish. take 911, and both the tsunami in asia, and the mass distruction from katrina. all of those things that people built up both good and bad , were wiped away in mere hours. Sure the things can be replaced, and new children born, but the things that once existed there are gone.

 

This has infinite utility compared with the abstract salvation that fundamentalists guarantee themselves. So "circumsize your heart," all you'd like, but I tend to focus on the value of works, because it actually exists and does good here on Earth now, whereas the doctrine of an afterlife is at best wishful thinking.

their is a reason the scriptures tell us faith without works is dead.

If you believe the bible, then you know, to help people, because you can see that this world is but a shadow of the glory of the world that is coming, and if you cannot love thy neighbor as thyself, were you really doing it in the first place?

 

I tend to think there's more heart in that than in modern fundamentalism.

Ye shall know them by their fruit

[ReluctantRomeo]

So those who don't know Jesus are damned to hellfire then? Way to get the message.

 

Exactly. What about Melchizedek? Or Balaam? Or the Magi before they met Jesus? Or Epimenides of Crete?

 

Or am I just confusing people with scriptures beyond the "four spiritual laws"

 

And what about the parable of the sheep and the goats? It's painfully and scarily clear that on That Day there will be surprises both ways. And that compassion will be at least one of the bases for final judgement.

 

 

What about Ghandi? He tried to be a Christian, but the Christians wouldn't let him.

 

When asked what he thought about western christianity, Ghandhi replied "it would be a good idea"

 

 

I have a hard time believing God created us to test whether or not we'll submit to one of his religions, hoping desperately (with our mortal soul on the line) that we chose the correct one.

 

"He did this so that men would seek him and reach out to him and even find him... for in him we live and move and have our being" Paul to the Athenians, quoting the aforementioned Epimenides (a pagan priest) with approval.

 

 

Good Works, with or without the decoration of faith, save people here on Earth. They help bring about the Kingdom of God without waiting until we die.

 

Perish the thought that we should get out of churches and do the actual work of Jesus - good news to the poor, proclaiming the kingdom of God, healing the sick.

 

 

whereas the doctrine of an afterlife is at best wishful thinking.

 

There I'm gonna part company with you. Why do you think this though?

[ReluctantRomeo]

Ugh, just one comment on a joke and you are subscribed to this [censored].

 

That'll teach you

[Admiral Thrawn]

Do I now? Well, the Bible says his righteousness is like filthy rags. The Bible says everybody's righteousness is like filthy rags, so that includes Ghandi.

 

Assertion : Ghandi had a secret private life of sin.

Support : The Bible says his righteousness is like filthy rags.

 

That doesn't follow.

 

The Bible says in Psalms 140:3, and Romans 3:10

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;", it goes on to say...

vs 12. "There are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one".

 

Before Paul's conversion, his name was Saul. He was probably the most self-righteous person around, and thought he was doing God a favour by hunting down the Christians prior to his conversion on the road to Demascus.

 

The fact is, there is no human being that is going to be above sin (at least without Divine intervention), including Ghandi, that is what the Bible says.

 

In your example or arguement, you are basing Ghandi's righteousness in his good works and legacy, not on Jesus Christ, remember, Ghandi is 'too good' to receive Christ so he doesn't need him or need to be saved because he is 'good' enough to make it. Isn't that what you were trying to say?

 

No, my argument is that he already received Jesus Christ because of his actions, not because of the words he says or the necklaces he wears or the Church he attended.

 

Justification by works is not supported in the Bible. You should read the book of Romans. A true profession arises from a change that has occurred inside. You are going to want the light to shine so other people are going to know something. The Bible does not support relics or wearing necklessess as having any value.

 

But I think we are missing the point here, Jesus said, He is the only way to the Father, the truth and the life.

 

The question I'm presenting is whether or not rejection of Christianity is a rejection of Christ.

 

A rejection of Jesus Christ is a rejection of God. You reject the Son, you also reject the Father.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Exactly. What about Melchizedek? Or Balaam? Or the Magi before they met Jesus? Or Epimenides of Crete?

 

People in the Old Testament were also justified by their faith in typologies of Christ. You will notice Abraham almost had to sacrifice his son, which was a type of Christ. Lambs were killed to atone for the sins of the people for a year, again, a type of Christ.

 

Back then, everyone went to hell, but hell was devided into a 'Paradise' place called 'Abraham's Bosom', and into a firey place known as, well Hell for the wicked dead. When Jesus died on the cross, He had paid the redemption that was credited to the people in Paradise, and opened the gates to let them out to go to heaven. Now, anyone who is justified by faith goes to heaven, and will no longer have to go to Paradise as it no longer exists.

 

Or am I just confusing people with scriptures beyond the "four spiritual laws"

 

Four spiritual laws?

 

And what about the parable of the sheep and the goats? It's painfully and scarily clear that on That Day there will be surprises both ways. And that compassion will be at least one of the bases for final judgement.

 

If a person is saved, then it follows, they will also have compassion. At the last day all works are going to be tried by fire. Only Gold, Silver, type works will remain. Those are works where the Spirit of God is behind them and you are doing the will of God. Those type of works done in the flesh, like stubble or wood, will all be burned up, those are the 'good works' done with impure motives. Good works should be done solely for the pure love of God, and love for other people. Any other motivation may cancel it out of having any effect in terms or reward or punishment on judgement day.

 

Christians are judged before the Judgement Seat of Christ, where they are judged for all works done in their body, whether good or bad, and are rewarded accordingly. Unsaved people are judged on the Great White Throne Judgement (Jesus would also be at the Judgement Seat there), 1000 years after the Millenium Kingdom is instituted by Jesus Christ on earth - in the not to distant future.

The difference of both judgements is one is a judgement of extent of reward, the other is a judgement of extent of damnation. Admittedly, if you go to heaven, without any reward, or in some state of eternal regret, but in a different form, then that is not going to be cool either.

Obviously, if Ghandi were to go to hell, he would suffer much less than Stalin, and possibly even the phoney Christians who rejected him in the first place. Hell is a state of being eternally seperated from God, but the type of punishment associated with it, is dependent on how one lived their life, and how many sins, and type of sins they have done.

 

Going back to works of compassion: The Holy Spirit, living inside of a born-again Christian will not make the person feel comfortable if they are not acting in compassion. Now a Christian can ignore the Holy Spirit and grow cold, but that would be a topic for discussion on the 'Eternal Security' thread. In other words, if you are in a Mansion, and there is a beggar who is starving, and setting up a tent next to your home - then, your 'fruit' as a Christian would be to adopt him as part of your family, as opposed to calling the police to have him arrested, right?

 

Again, if as Chris has pointed out, if a Christian behaves in a manner that is not compassionate, and is rejecting people like Ghandi, then chances are, he is not even saved, is a nominal Christian at best, not an authentic one. There are plenty of Christians who are not saved.

 

When asked what he thought about western christianity, Ghandhi replied "it would be a good idea"

 

What does he think about Jesus Christ, and what did he do with Him?

[bluetuesday]

Something is keeping us down.

 

ain't that the truth. i'm voting for christian fundamentalism.

 

nicholas, honey i think you're wasting your breath. they don't get it.

 

can i just point out to admiral thrawn and everyone who shares his opinions, and i'm not shouting, i just feel i need to speak up a little for emphasis...

 

BEING CHRISTIAN MEANS BEING LIKE JESUS.

 

how can this have been so wretchedly misunderstood?

 

basing your faith on the idea that to be a christian you have to believe only that jesus was god and accept him as your saviour demands a discussion about the nature of the word 'believe'.

 

you cannot hear the commandment to love, know it came from jesus and ignore it. doing so would be to doubt that jesus was god, right? it would be disbelief in action.

 

i mean if almighty god gave you an order, to fail to do it would mean either:

 

a. you didn't think the commander really was god, or

b. you were determined to do your own thing even if you believed the commander was god.

 

therefore, carrying out the will of god is believing in him. it is faith in action.

 

failing to carry out the will of god, failing to keep the commandment to love god and your neighbour, means you are not a christian in anything other than name. it's not worth the paper it's written on. i don't doubt anyone's good intentions, but think, people!!

 

is your god a god who would see his own children burn in hell because they were raised in a culture or at a time in which to be christian (if they had even heard of the notion) was a death sentence?

 

IS HE?

 

may god strike me down and chuck me into hell (or the bible belt, whichever is nearer) if the label 'christian' when used on fundamentalist, bible-idolising (oh yes you do) terms isn't a huge red herring that the old git diabolos is probably wetting his little red hotpants about.

[Admiral Thrawn]

basing your faith on the idea that to be a christian you have to believe only that jesus was god and accept him as your saviour demands a discussion about the nature of the word 'believe'.

 

you cannot hear the commandment to love, know it came from jesus and ignore it. doing so would be to doubt that jesus was god, right? it would be disbelief in action.

 

There is no arguement. Faith without works is dead faith.

 

i mean if almighty god gave you an order, to fail to do it would mean either:

 

a. you didn't think the commander really was god, or

b. you were determined to do your own thing even if you believed the commander was god.

 

therefore, carrying out the will of god is believing in him. it is faith in action.

 

Of course.

 

failing to carry out the will of god, failing to keep the commandment to love god and your neighbour, means you are not a christian in anything other than name. it's not worth the paper it's written on. i don't doubt anyone's good intentions, but think, people!!

 

The Bible does not teach sinless perfection. If a Christian sins, they are to repent, ask the Lord to forgive them for that sin, and to give them the strength not to reoffend, as promised in the Bible.

 

is your god a god who would see his own children burn in hell because they were raised in a culture or at a time in which to be christian (if they had even heard of the notion) was a death sentence?

 

Not everybody is a child of God. You have to be adopted into the family of God to become a child of God.

 

may god strike me down and chuck me into hell (or the bible belt, whichever is nearer) if the label 'christian' when used on fundamentalist, bible-idolising (oh yes you do) terms isn't a huge red herring that the old git diabolos is probably wetting his little red hotpants about.

 

Just rent the video "Final Destination 1 and 2". The 3rd Sequel will be coming out soon.

[bluetuesday]

Not everybody is a child of God. You have to be adopted into the family of God to become a child of God.

 

i beg you, don't go around slandering god in this unfounded, ungodly way. you seem to me to be treading a very fine line between bigotry and full-on racial/cultural hatred as it is.

 

i'm not going to argue with you, admiral. i can't open the eyes of someone who refuses to see.

 

you think you're right. take consolation in that.

[Nicholas]

If a person is saved, then it follows, they will also have compassion.

 

Clearly, and unfortunately, it does not follow.

 

A rejection of Jesus Christ is a rejection of God. You reject the Son, you also reject the Father.

 

I'll pray, for your sake, that you are wrong.

 

Blue's right. You can take solace in the fact that you believe you are right. My only solace is the fact that your understanding of Christianity is not universal.

 

you yourself claim to be a Christian, why do you do so if you really believe that those who rejected Gandhi were in fact true and genuine christians?

 

Because I have devoted my entire life to understanding my faith, and living it. I have also spent a good deal of my time working and living and interacting with other humans, so I tend to think I understand them as well. My faith is a hybrid of my devotion and my humanity, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

If your God leaves anyone but the most Evangelical hypocrites behind, that's fine. I'm happier with things my way; God, real or imaginary, works through me, and I'm happy with what he's done. If that means that, in your eyes, my Christianity is not 'genuine', then I'd be happy to spend eternity in Hell with Ghandi.

 

you seem to come across as believing that deeds, behavior,and motives, are what makes a person a christtian

 

No, they're a reflection of what makes person a Christian--much moreso than professed reverence to Christ.

 

The "exclusiveness" and "Exclusion", that you and others reguard as evil, is in fact the very definition of Christian, being in fact a follower of Jesus, rather than Mohammed, or buddah, or the dali llama, or yes in fact Gandhi.

 

That's certainly not my definition of Christian. Did Jesus define Christian? Did he even use the word? Mohammad recognized the importance of Jesus. As does the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. You should learn something from any of them.