NationStates Jolt Archive

And yes, people who believe that virtuous non-Christians are justly being tortured for all eternity are idiots. Not sure how productive it is to tell them this repeatedly (lessens the chance that they might actually listen to sense), but that's a different discussion ^_^

Tell me, why is it you believe that all Christans who believe virtious non Christians will go to hell are mistaken. I would say you are mistaken for beliving hell or hevan entrance has anything to do with how "virtious" you are. Thats a non Christan cultural mistake and has no biblical value.

I've set it up so that you get to choose Door A or Door B. One door has a horrific fate while behind the other one is pure joy. You get to choose which door you go behind. I'm not choosing for you--you are sending yourself to a gruesome death or to pure bliss. Its all your responsibility. Granted, I'm the one who set it all up, including bringing you into this situation and requiring you to choose a door, but its still your choice. Also, the doors are unmarked.

Flaws in your analogy
1) The doors are not unmarked, God makes it very clear what is and is not expected of you if you want to go through the joy door

2) God did not "set this up" as you put it. We sinned, mucking up the perfectness and so to fix it, God sent Jesus. If anything we caused the situation. Its like if you cheet on your Taxes and then the inland revenue give you the choice of either pleeding guilty or not guilty to the charges and weheter or not to co-operate in the case. The inland revenue did not set up the choice, they just reacted in the way they had to given the circumstances.

Go to this web site

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

and see what you make of what they have to say on the idea which you put forward

Neo Cannen, you're an idiot! Sorry, that was a bit harsh. You're a brainwashed, non-thinker.

All religions are inventions of the human imagination. They don't exist in reality, so stop worrying about it.

No-one's going to heaven, worry about the here and now. Get a LIFE!

Get a LIFE!

Never!

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.


My God is a God of wrath, anger, vengeance, and hatred. He hates those He wills to hate, because it suits His sovereign will to hate them (Malachi 1:2-3) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" twin brothers in the womb, one predestinated for God's eternal undying love, the other predestinated for God's eternal undying hatred.

If you are not part of the Elect, nothing you do will help you, social work is irrelevant and means nothing in the eyes of God. If He has not elected you, you are headed for hell.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.


Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

My God is a God of wrath, anger, vengeance, and hatred. He hates those He wills to hate, because it suits His sovereign will to hate them (Malachi 1:2-3) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" twin brothers in the womb, one predestinated for God's eternal undying love, the other predestinated for God's eternal undying hatred.

If you are not part of the Elect, nothing you do will help you, social work is irrelevant and means nothing in the eyes of God. If He has not elected you, you are headed for hell.
Good

Neo Cannen, you're an idiot! Sorry, that was a bit harsh. You're a brainwashed, non-thinker.

All religions are inventions of the human imagination. They don't exist in reality, so stop worrying about it.

No-one's going to heaven, worry about the here and now. Get a LIFE!

Abritary insult with no reason behind it. I think about Christianity all the time, else I would not know as much about it as I do now. If you read what I and others post on the subject, you would see that few Christians are just idiots. Would you kindly retract your statment, in favour of something like "I believe all religions are inventions of the human imagination" because then you are not sounding so brash and genralising without evidence. At least my arguements have logical reasoning and a source from which they all stem. Your arguement (and those on here who believe that virtious non Christians will go to heaven) are centred around this idea "Gasp that sounds to horrible to be true. Lets say it isnt and deal with it our own way".

Your arguement (and those on here who believe that virtious non Christians will go to heaven) are centred around this idea "Gasp that sounds to horrible to be true. Lets say it isnt and deal with it our own way".

Your point of view is contradictory: Merciful god that does NOT save the virtuous. So, the Bible is contradictory, which prevents it from being true, unless your interpretation of it is contradictory, which ALSO prevents it from being true.

Is it me or does noone else have a problem with the Christian god sending newborn babies that die to Hell? As 'All have sinned' , and the newborn does not accept that he has sinned and ask God for help in dealing with its sins, it burns?
And anyone who says Ghandi deserves to burn alongside those kids, while Hitler, murderer of millions, eats ice-cream in the playground that is Heaven, is a misled individual.

Is it me or does noone else have a problem with the Christian god sending newborn babies that die to Hell? As 'All have sinned' , and the newborn does not accept that he has sinned and ask God for help in dealing with its sins, it burns?
And anyone who says Ghandi deserves to burn alongside those kids, while Hitler, murderer of millions, eats ice-cream in the playground that is Heaven, is a misled individual.

Actually, I, Cyrian, you, Asengard, Mockston and others seem to have said problem with the "good" Christian god sending newborn babies that die to Hell (And other stuff), O Noble One. And I agree with you: anyone who says Ghandi deserves to burn alongside those kids, while Hitler, christian, murderer of millions (that MIGHT have repented just as he was killing himself, think of that), eats ice-cream in the playground that is Heaven, is a misled individual... AKA, an idiot.

My God is a God of wrath, anger, vengeance, and hatred. He hates those He wills to hate, because it suits His sovereign will to hate them (Malachi 1:2-3) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" twin brothers in the womb, one predestinated for God's eternal undying love, the other predestinated for God's eternal undying hatred.

If you are not part of the Elect, nothing you do will help you, social work is irrelevant and means nothing in the eyes of God. If He has not elected you, you are headed for hell.
Your God is an evil, heartless and ill-humoured monster and not even worth to spit on him.

Your arguement (and those on here who believe that virtious non Christians will go to heaven) are centred around this idea "Gasp that sounds to horrible to be true. Lets say it isnt and deal with it our own way".
You said it yourself: It is horrible. I can't see any kind of justice, mercy or charity in the essence of such a God. So just be honest and say that your God is cruel and more than willing to doom innocent people, instead of repeating all this "God wants to save you, yet he can't because you have to accept him, but still he could because he's almighty and, hm, seems that this all is a little inconsistent, but nevermind, it makes sense because it's God's will etc"-stories.

You said it yourself: It is horrible. I can't see any kind of justice, mercy or charity in the essence of such a God. So just be honest and say that your God is cruel and more than willing to doom innocent people, instead of repeating all this "God wants to save you, yet he can't because you have to accept him, but still he could because he's almighty and, hm, seems that this all is a little inconsistent, but nevermind, it makes sense because it's God's will etc"-stories.

*Clap... Clap...
ClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClap
ClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClap...*

Perfect, Schoeningia. Danke schön!
Hey... Come to think about it...
YOU STOLE MY POINT AGAIN!!!
Why does everyone steal my points? ;)

My God is a God of wrath, anger, vengeance, and hatred. He hates those He wills to hate, because it suits His sovereign will to hate them (Malachi 1:2-3) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" twin brothers in the womb, one predestinated for God's eternal undying love, the other predestinated for God's eternal undying hatred.

If you are not part of the Elect, nothing you do will help you, social work is irrelevant and means nothing in the eyes of God. If He has not elected you, you are headed for hell.

In short, unless you're kidding, your God is Satan. If you're not joking, you're a horrible person. If you're joking, good joke, but I recommend adding smileys or a "*JK*" to the post the next time. I'm assuming you're joking because no one could be this evil... Could them?

Is it me or does noone else have a problem with the Christian god sending newborn babies that die to Hell?

The Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me.”

In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

The Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me.”

In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Funny, you neglected to answer the part in which he mentioned that you believe that Ghandi is justly in Hell. Is it because you can't come up with an explanation for that little opinion of yours, you idiot?

Hey... Come to think about it...
YOU STOLE MY POINT AGAIN!!!
Why does everyone steal my points?
I think it's because of my atheistic lack of morality. :D

Funny, you neglected to answer the part in which he mentioned that you believe that Ghandi is justly in Hell. Is it because you can't come up with an explanation for that little opinion of yours, you idiot?

I dont know where ghadi is and neither do you. if ghandi accept jesus as his savior, good for him. if he didnt, then he is not in heaven, because he did not believe that jesus was the way to salvation, (which the NT teaches). he liked jesus teachings, but did not accept him as saviour.

(the reason i posted in the firstplace: most of you seem to be arguing that God sends infants to hell. the fact (look to my above post) is that the bible does not teach that.)

I dont know where ghadi is and neither do you. if ghandi accept jesus as his savior, good for him. if he didnt, then he is not in heaven, because he did not believe that jesus was the way to salvation, (which the NT teaches). he liked jesus teachings, but did not accept him as saviour.
So Ghandi's not in heaven but good ol' Adolf, who maybe had accept Jesus as saviour, is?
A very just God indeed.

I think it's because of my atheistic lack of morality. :D

NICE ONE! :)

I dont know where ghadi is and neither do you. if ghandi accept jesus as his savior, good for him. if he didnt, then he is not in heaven, because he did not believe that jesus was the way to salvation, (which the NT teaches). he liked jesus teachings, but did not accept him as saviour.

(the reason i posted in the firstplace: most of you seem to be arguing that God sends infants to hell. the fact (look to my above post) is that the bible does not teach that.)
Origional sin (catholic)

untill you are baptized you still have it

Hence going to hell

So Ghandi's not in heaven but good ol' Adolf, who maybe had accept Jesus as saviour, is?
A very just God indeed.

hitler was an evil person. but that fact is that we are all sinners. and all need to repent. So are you saying that God should not accept sinners into heaven? thats the whole point of repentance. i dont know if hitler repented. but you cannot say 'i beleive' and go to heaven. God looks at our hearts to know if we truly beleive or not.

I dont know where ghadi is and neither do you. if ghandi accept jesus as his savior, good for him. if he didnt, then he is not in heaven, because he did not believe that jesus was the way to salvation, (which the NT teaches). he liked jesus teachings, but did not accept him as saviour.

Then your god is not just as you claim him to be. Or not almighy as you claim him to be. Or, quite simply, contradictory. You think that Ghandi is justly burning in Hell. I don't know if you're a bigger idiot for believing that, for thinking that that's just or for worshipping a god that would do or allow that. Either ways, you're an idiot.

Origional sin (catholic)

untill you are baptized you still have it

Hence going to hell


Calvinistic teaching claims that all humans have inherited a corrupt spiritual nature due to the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Baptism is not what saves you. Baptism is an act or sign to show your commitment. If someone beleives in Christ and is not baptised do they still go to heaven? yes, baptism is not what saves.

hitler was an evil person. but that fact is that we are all sinners. and all need to repent. So are you saying that God should not accept sinners into heaven? thats the whole point of repentance. i dont know if hitler repented. but you cannot say 'i beleive' and go to heaven. God looks at our hearts to know if we truly beleive or not.

So, you're saying that a JUST God will allow Hitler into Heaven if Hitler believes him, but not Ghandi...
It can't happen. Because it has no logic.
You are an idiot.

Calvinistic teaching claims that all humans have inherited a corrupt spiritual nature due to the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Baptism is not what saves you. Baptism is an act or sign to show your commitment. If someone beleives in Christ and is not baptised do they still go to heaven? yes, baptism is not what saves.

A God that calls you a sinner because you're the distant descendant of a sinner isn't very just, now is he? Because if he is, I'll be glad to tell you you should be arrested for EVERYTHING your father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc, ever did...

Calvinistic teaching claims that all humans have inherited a corrupt spiritual nature due to the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Baptism is not what saves you. Baptism is an act or sign to show your commitment. If someone beleives in Christ and is not baptised do they still go to heaven? yes, baptism is not what saves.
Not according to the parish I used to be part of ... but the point is moot ... can an infant even believe in anything much less show comitment? if not does that mean they are still going to hell?

Not according to the parish I used to be part of ... but the point is moot ... can an infant even believe in anything much less show comitment? if not does that mean they are still going to hell?
look at post #514

hitler was an evil person. but that fact is that we are all sinners. and all need to repent. So are you saying that God should not accept sinners into heaven? thats the whole point of repentance. i dont know if hitler repented. but you cannot say 'i beleive' and go to heaven. God looks at our hearts to know if we truly beleive or not
I say that if there is a heaven, than a merciful God has to let everybody in, not only reward the toadies and punish the skeptics.

I mean, imagine the following scene:

Hitler and Ghandi are standing before God. God asks:

"Well here you are. Do you repent your sins and accept my son Jesus as your saviour?"
Hitler: "Yes, I repent. It was a very bad thing to kill those 20 million people. I promise not to do it again."
God: "Ok, come in. Now what about you, Ghandi?"
Ghandi: "Well, I don't tink that the questions of justice and mercy can be answered with a simple 'Yes' or-"
God: "That's it, heretic. Burn in hell."
Ghandi: "No, wait! Aaaah!"
*screams while he's pulled away by demons*

Justifidians won't be happy with a god that allows him into Heaven, unless said God also prevents EVERYONE DIFFERENT from going there. He doesn't want a God, he wants a xenophobic dictator. Boo-hoo. He'd only believe in a god that keeps him in his heaven - an isolated bubble where no one that disagrees may enter and where he feels safe and good knowing everyone else is burning. In short, Justifidians wants a womb outside of which everyone suffers. But it won't happen.

look at post #514
So children get in even if they dont understand nor worship god ... why not everyone else?

and for that matter what is the cuttoff age? how old is too old to be saved even with lack of belief?

Most of you are saying you are worse than Ghandi and better than Hitler. That's a nice pigeon hole to be stuffed in. Are you really better than anyone else? Are you really worse than anyone else? Of course you are not those guys, you are yourself. The only person that will stand before God at your death is you and you alone. So stop talking about other people, it's you who we are worried about. It's you who were given the decision for salvation, not somebody else. You can't deny it and you certainly can't deny it before God.

Most of you are saying you are worse than Ghandi and better than Hitler. That's a nice pigeon hole to be stuffed in. Are you really better than anyone else? Are you really worse than anyone else? Of course you are not those guys, you are yourself. The only person that will stand before God at your death is you and you alone. So stop talking about other people, it's you who we are worried about. It's you who were given the decision for salvation, not somebody else. You can't deny it and you certainly can't deny it before God.
Who said that?

Most of you are saying you are worse than Ghandi and better than Hitler. That's a nice pigeon hole to be stuffed in. Are you really better than anyone else? Are you really worse than anyone else? Of course you are not those guys, you are yourself.

Deeds reflect character. Nice try, though.

The only person that will stand before God at your death is you and you alone. So stop talking about other people, it's you who we are worried about. It's you who were given the decision for salvation, not somebody else. You can't deny it and you certainly can't deny it before God.

Watch me.

How else did Ghandi and Hitler get into the discussion? They are already passed the gates of death. You are still alive and you are the one we are most concerned about. When you stand before God, you will be more than naked, you will be transparent. I can't watch you.

How else did Ghandi and Hitler get into the discussion? They are already passed the gates of death. You are still alive and you are the one we are most concerned about. When you stand before God, you will be more than naked, you will be transparent. I can't watch you.
Again supposing it even exists (god)

How else did Ghandi and Hitler get into the discussion? They are already passed the gates of death. You are still alive and you are the one we are most concerned about. When you stand before God, you will be more than naked, you will be transparent. I can't watch you.

Typical. Though smart, not smart enough. Here's a guy that noticed that this part of the argument is lost, and decided to change the subject to avoid more of the damage of being associated with views such as Justifidians' one.

Heikoku, careful with the idiot-gun, an empty mag will explode in your face. 8)

And I must congradulate Justifidians on continuing debate when outnumbered, it show much character and skill.

But back to past topic, you say children are exempt from Gods requirements to enter heaven and be spared eternal damnation and the like, but it has also been (overly) posted previously that ALL people are sinners, and are born that way due to (Adam and Eve story). If it is their youth that makes them exempt, at what age does this saftey net expire? Or, is this a simple contradictory quote used in the dying attempts to save your Gods 'all-loving, all-merciful bit?

I must appologise for the hostility that might be seen in my previous post, by 'dying attemps' i only imply that there are now very few posters defending the opposition position. I retract this statement with appologies.

Tell me, why is it you believe that all Christans who believe virtious non Christians will go to hell are mistaken. I would say you are mistaken for beliving hell or hevan entrance has anything to do with how "virtious" you are. Thats a non Christan cultural mistake and has no biblical value.

The problem is that to believe that Ghandi (being symbolic of good, intelligent people who don't believe in God) is in Hell is to believe in a unjust system, one where bad things happen to otherwise good people who are perhaps a bit more skeptical than they should be. This may be short-sighted of them, but it seems clear that any merciful individual would be willing to overlook/forgive what really seems to be a minor mistake, in the grand scheme of things (a choice which, while perhaps incorrect, harms nobody and nothing).

And the reason that you could be called an idiot for it, is because you're choosing to believe in a blatantly unfair and unkind system, one where 90%+ of humanity is being allowed to suffer a fate so horrible that our minds cannot even conceive of it. For all that you wish to believe otherwise, Christianity is a choice that one makes, one of many, that has about as much objective factuality as any other religion, which is to say none at all. One chooses a religion because one agrees with its messages, and right now you are choosing to believe in something that has a decidedly unkind message: believe in God, or suffer forever.

That's where concepts like Purgatory come from. Even if there's absolutely no scriptural basis for it, which may or may not be the case, it came about when intelligent people who liked the greater message that Christianity conveyed, but didn't like the idea of nice people suffering forever for no reason, reconciled their ideal of a just, loving, infinitely merciful God with the concepts of Heaven and Hell. It's obvious, for one, that its at least somewhat problematic for absolutely everyone to get into Heaven with no strings attached (or rather, some people are uncomfortable with the thought; I for one love it). It's also problematic, however, for there to be no middle ground between absolute reward (Heaven), and absolute punishment (Hell). It would mean that petty sinners and, yes, virtuous unbelievers are getting the same raw deal as mass-murdering binge-drinking child-raping graffiti artists with obscene tattoos. Therefore, there must (must) be some sort of middle ground, some way to seperate the truly virtuous, the saints, the profoundly pious and faithful believers, from the normal, day-to-day people, the skeptics and so on, and from truly despicable horrible baby-eaters. Purgatory may not be scripturally supported, but its a way to make Christianity work without the issue that Heikoku is so concerned with, that of a God who is either not as powerful (unable to save people who don't believe in him) or not as good (unwilling to save people who don't believe in him) as he is reputed to be.

I Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Luke 12:47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

Flaws in your analogy
1) The doors are not unmarked, God makes it very clear what is and is not expected of you if you want to go through the joy door

Yes, but so does every other religion. There is nothing objective to recommend a brand of Christianity over any other faith, except for one's affinity for the messages being conveyed. Does God expect us to play some sort of cosmic guessing game, where we have a number of apparently equal choices, but only one is correct? Keep in mind that the penalty for guessing wrong is an eternity of suffering, something I, for one, would not wish on the worst human being who ever lived. Does this make me more compassionate than the God who punishes people in this way for having faith in something that is not objectively true (i.e. another religion in a universe where fundamentalist Christians are correct)?

2) God did not "set this up" as you put it. We sinned, mucking up the perfectness and so to fix it, God sent Jesus. If anything we caused the situation. Its like if you cheet on your Taxes and then the inland revenue give you the choice of either pleeding guilty or not guilty to the charges and weheter or not to co-operate in the case. The inland revenue did not set up the choice, they just reacted in the way they had to given the circumstances.

But God is omnipotent. He can do anything, he has absolute control over absolutely everything. Free will in the face of omnipotence is meaningless. Saying "we caused this situation" is meaningless. Omnipotent God has the power to effortlessly fix or change anything and everything. Everything that exists, exists by his sufferance, and in a way that he finds acceptable, for he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and present everywhere at all times.

To say that any system is "not his doing" is ridiculous; he knew precisely what would happen when he created Adam and Eve; at that point he was aware of my choice, in 5th grade, to reject the hateful nonsense that was being spewed all around me. At that point he knew that Gandhi, an eminently compassionate individual, would examine the scriptures which you believe in and find them lacking. He may or may not be directly, personally responsible for any given event (he did not reach down and tweak my neurons into making me reject Christianity), but he is sure as hell knew the consequences of his actions when he made everything, down to the most minute detail. That's what you get in an all-powerful God: a being who is morally liable for everything that happens, ever.

Do I think that, this being the case, we should call God unjust for every little bad thing that happens? No; the illusion of free will exists completely, and to blame bad things on God is to reject one's personal responsibility. But it must be remembered that everything that happens was, if not pre-planned, at least predicted and known by God at the beginning of time. It certainly means that any systemics completely beyond our power (afterlife, possibly natural disasters) are completely in his hands and on his head. To say that it's not an omnipotent, omniscient God's fault that he presides over a system where minor personal failings lead to an infinity of torture is blind.

Luke 12:47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

Are you using this to support the idea of a system of graded punishments, lesser penalties for lesser crimes? I'd be cool with that.

(it must be added, however, that in this case it does not matter what the Bible says. We aren't discussing whether or not scripture can be read as supporting exclusive salvation; it can be. We're discussing whether or not it is correct to do so, and whether an honest follower of the (Christian) values of forgiveness, compassion, and so on, can in good faith believe this.)

Are you using this to support the idea of a system of graded punishments, lesser penalties for lesser crimes? I'd be cool with that.

(it must be added, however, that in this case it does not matter what the Bible says. We aren't discussing whether or not scripture can be read as supporting exclusive salvation; it can be. We're discussing whether or not it is correct to do so, and whether an honest follower of the (Christian) values of forgiveness, compassion, and so on, can in good faith believe this.)

Exactly.

I Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
/snip/"

I can quote random things too, but perhaps an explanation, or even a summary would have been helpful?

This, to me, says that God rewards also those who do good deeds: "If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward." however, we have many Christian posters who suggest otherwise. This is why its not a great plan to quote the Bible - it is often contradictory. <edit: if this is taken from the Bible>

"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." - this part is slightly confusing, does it mean those who lead bad lives go to hell or not? Be saved, but through fire is a bit ambigous to me..

Well, YOU may be as perverse as a child molester and as sinful as a murderer - which explains why pseudo-christianism is one of the religions with least self-esteem. Yes we CAN earn this through social work, unless God is not righteous or not almighty. Your argument can't hold water unless you cancel the almighty or the righteous. So. which will it be?

You failed to understand what I was saying. The key assumption to your argument is that being a good person deserves a good reward. This is true. My point was that in the history of humanity, there has only been 1 good person, and even He was a bit of an exception. You may not like Original Sin; it's a personal affront. No one likes being told they've done something wrong.

You say pseudo-christianism is one of the religions with least self-esteem. Who was the hymn writer who wrote, "Nothing of myself I bring, but only to your cross I cling"? Why not support humility? Christ certainly did: he came to Earth, he washes his disciples' feet, he suffered death on the Cross.

You failed to understand what I was saying. The key assumption to your argument is that being a good person deserves a good reward. This is true. My point was that in the history of humanity, there has only been 1 good person, and even He was a bit of an exception. You may not like Original Sin; it's a personal affront. No one likes being told they've done something wrong.

You say pseudo-christianism is one of the religions with least self-esteem. Who was the hymn writer who wrote, "Nothing of myself I bring, but only to your cross I cling"? Why not support humility? Christ certainly did: he came to Earth, he washes his disciples' feet, he suffered death on the Cross.
Then was not jesus a sinner? being born with origional sin? (he was human)

Then was not jesus a sinner? being born with origional sin? (he was human)

Check the circumstances of the birth. The vigin birth is the circumvention of original sin. He was man, and was not.

Check the circumstances of the birth. The vigin birth is the circumvention of original sin. He was man, and was not.
Where are the rules that say that? (virgin brith curcumventation)

(it must be added, however, that in this case it does not matter what the Bible says. We aren't discussing whether or not scripture can be read as supporting exclusive salvation; it can be. We're discussing whether or not it is correct to do so, and whether an honest follower of the (Christian) values of forgiveness, compassion, and so on, can in good faith believe this.)

If you are not intersted in the Bible, why are you discussing it in a thread entitiled "Come get me pseudo CHRISTIANS". Also you make the following mistake. Christianity is not just about value systems and ethics. Christianity states that you cannot get into heaven via works because to do so you would have to live the life of Christ and you cant do that. So God came up with another way of getting into heaven. If anything, my idea of God is fairer than yours. Your idea of salvation via works is "Do X, Y, and Z good things then you can get into heaven". That to me sounds like

a) a very nasty and demanding God

b) meaning that your motives behind your good things would be self centred.

No one likes being told they've done something wrong.

Especially when what they did was BEING BORN...

Where are the rules that say that? (virgin brith curcumventation)

I didnt say there were rules that say that but it makes sense. Everyone else is a decentent of Adam, where the original sin comes from, except Jesus.

I didnt say there were rules that say that but it makes sense. Everyone else is a decentent of Adam, where the original sin comes from, except Jesus.
Why except jesus? besideds conception he was a baby just like all the ones born with origional sin

the whole "he became man" part

Especially when what they did was BEING BORN...

Since when is being born a sin? I certainly never argued that. Again, you've misunderstood the idea of Original Sin.

Stop thinking of sin as an act you do with a big sin-counter floating invisibly over your head. I steal an ice cream cone from a kid, poof! that's sin # 10,498. Original Sin is better thought of as a latent condition, present in every man and woman since the Fall, that separates us from God. It gives us the tendency to sin. We ARE born with original sin, if that's what you're referring to earlier. We ARE born spiritually dead. But I still think that you're viewing sins as independent little acts of malice when they really belie a condition underneath.

UpwardThrust, Neo's right about the virgin birth. That Jesus was true God and true man is hard to understand, but the virgin birth meant that Jesus was without sin. But one could just as easily say the converse: Jesus was without sin, so he was born of a virgin.

Yes, but so does every other religion. There is nothing objective to recommend a brand of Christianity over any other faith, except for one's affinity for the messages being conveyed. Does God expect us to play some sort of cosmic guessing game, where we have a number of apparently equal choices, but only one is correct? Keep in mind that the penalty for guessing wrong is an eternity of suffering, something I, for one, would not wish on the worst human being who ever lived. Does this make me more compassionate than the God who punishes people in this way for having faith in something that is not objectively true (i.e. another religion in a universe where fundamentalist Christians are correct)?


Again you are jumping outside the grounds here. You are asking about other religions in a discussion about Christianity. Please stop it since the thread is entitled with the words "CHRISTIANS"


But God is omnipotent. He can do anything, he has absolute control over absolutely everything. Free will in the face of omnipotence is meaningless. Saying "we caused this situation" is meaningless. Omnipotent God has the power to effortlessly fix or change anything and everything. Everything that exists, exists by his sufferance, and in a way that he finds acceptable, for he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and present everywhere at all times.

To say that any system is "not his doing" is ridiculous; he knew precisely what would happen when he created Adam and Eve; at that point he was aware of my choice, in 5th grade, to reject the hateful nonsense that was being spewed all around me. At that point he knew that Gandhi, an eminently compassionate individual, would examine the scriptures which you believe in and find them lacking. He may or may not be directly, personally responsible for any given event (he did not reach down and tweak my neurons into making me reject Christianity), but he is sure as hell knew the consequences of his actions when he made everything, down to the most minute detail. That's what you get in an all-powerful God: a being who is morally liable for everything that happens, ever.

Do I think that, this being the case, we should call God unjust for every little bad thing that happens? No; the illusion of free will exists completely, and to blame bad things on God is to reject one's personal responsibility. But it must be remembered that everything that happens was, if not pre-planned, at least predicted and known by God at the beginning of time. It certainly means that any systemics completely beyond our power (afterlife, possibly natural disasters) are completely in his hands and on his head. To say that it's not an omnipotent, omniscient God's fault that he presides over a system where minor personal failings lead to an infinity of torture is blind.

The situation is not of his causation. IE he did not intend it to be like it is. He wanted it to be like the garden of Eden was. Had he wanted the earth like it is now he would have made it like it is now (Note: We are going into the dangerous territory of the compex diffrences between God's plan and God's will. I will explain it if need be but keep in mind it does get very complicated). But he made it perfect. An all powerful God is hardly moraly liable for everything that happens ever. On the grounds that God gave us free will. God knows everything that will happen of course, but he did not cause it to happen. Further more, it is not true to say that these personal failings are anything minor. You are comparing these things to people. When compared to other people they may be minor. But compared to God, they are massive. That is what you have to keep in mind at this point. God did indeed set up the system for salvation but its hardly an unfair one. Its just this

"Here is salvation, all you need to do to take it is accept that you need it and that I can and am giving it to you"

Since when is being born a sin? I certainly never argued that. Again, you've misunderstood the idea of Original Sin.

Stop thinking of sin as an act you do with a big sin-counter floating invisibly over your head. I steal an ice cream cone from a kid, poof! that's sin # 10,498. Original Sin is better thought of as a latent condition, present in every man and woman since the Fall, that separates us from God. It gives us the tendency to sin. We ARE born with original sin, if that's what you're referring to earlier. We ARE born spiritually dead. But I still think that you're viewing sins as independent little acts of malice when they really belie a condition underneath.

UpwardThrust, Neo's right about the virgin birth. That Jesus was true God and true man is hard to understand, but the virgin birth meant that Jesus was without sin. But one could just as easily say the converse: Jesus was without sin, so he was born of a virgin.
How does it mean that? is there any biblical reason to take that point of view or just because you wish it?

How does it mean that? is there any biblical reason to take that point of view or just because you wish it?

Its quite simple. Original sin decends from Adam. Jesus does not decend from Adam. Ergo Jesus does not have original sin.

How does it mean that? is there any biblical reason to take that point of view or just because you wish it?

Could you clarify that? I don't know what you mean. Do you need sources that show that Jesus was sinless, or sources that show the virgin birth? Maybe some that link the two, what?

Its quite simple. Original sin decends from Adam. Jesus does not decend from Adam. Ergo Jesus does not have original sin.
Sure he did ... father didn’t mother did ... except for property he had Adam’s genes in him (They were not strict patriarchal society back then) (in fact if I remember right Jewish tradition said the race was passed through the mothers)

Besides if he was not a decendent of adam he was not man ... which really goes against a lot of church teaching

Sure he did ... father didn’t mother did ... except for property he had Adam’s genes in him (They were not strict patriarchal society back then) (in fact if I remember right Jewish tradition said the race was passed through the mothers)

Besides if he was not a decendent of adam he was not man ... which really goes against a lot of church teaching

The bible says he was a man, and was not. The point is he was seperated out from the rest of us. He was not just another man born of man. He was a man born of God.

Its quite simple. Original sin decends from Adam. Jesus does not decend from Adam. Ergo Jesus does not have original sin.
Cute, but it goes once again to show that your god is not righteous, since SINS SHOULD NOT BE INHERITED.

The bible says he was a man, and was not. The point is he was seperated out from the rest of us. He was not just another man born of man. He was a man born of God.

Coming into the thread late, so if I post something already covered my apologies. I'll try and get the whole thread read in time.

My question:

Was Mary without sin, being born a human and all?

If so, how?

Cute, but it goes once again to show that your god is not righteous, since SINS SHOULD NOT BE INHERITED.

Sin's general are not inherited. Original sin however is diffrent. It is what many describe as now as the "Human condition". The latent condition that humans have which makes them not perfect any more.

Cute, but it goes once again to show that your god is not righteous, since SINS SHOULD NOT BE INHERITED.
related question for Neo: are sins a "genetic" trait? in other words, if you look at an adopted child, do they inheret the sins of their biological parents, or of the parents who rear them?

Sin's general are not inherited. Original sin however is diffrent. It is what many describe as now as the "Human condition". The latent condition that humans have which makes them not perfect any more.
since when is lack of perfection a sin?

Coming into the thread late, so if I post something already covered my apologies. I'll try and get the whole thread read in time.

My question:

Was Mary without sin, being born a human and all?

If so, how?

Mary was not without sin. You are missing the point here, attmeting to put sin into some kind of biological signifcence. The diffrence between Jesus and other humans is that he was concieved despite not having an earthly father. The point of him not just appering as he could have done is so that he was to be the complete human he had to be born. He went through everything humans go through. He was human and yet not. It's complicated.

since when is lack of perfection a sin?

Considering perfection is Jesus, then since forever. But for those who say "thats unfair" as I have pointed out repeatedly there is a way round all sin.

Mary was not without sin. You are missing the point here, attmeting to put sin into some kind of biological signifcence. The diffrence between Jesus and other humans is that he was concieved despite not having an earthly father. The point of him not just appering as he could have done is so that he was to be the complete human he had to be born. He went through everything humans go through. He was human and yet not. It's complicated.

Mary had to have had a human father. Was she not also tainted with original sin?

Considering perfection is Jesus, then since forever. But for those who say "thats unfair" as I have pointed out repeatedly there is a way round all sin.
no, you don't seem to understand. yes, i realize human aren't perfect. why does that equate to "sin"? why is it wicked to be non-perfect?

Considering perfection is Jesus, then since forever. But for those who say "thats unfair" as I have pointed out repeatedly there is a way round all sin.

A way that is ALSO unfair. A fair, omnipotent god will not create an unfair way, unless he's not fair or he's not omnipotent.

related question for Neo: are sins a "genetic" trait? in other words, if you look at an adopted child, do they inheret the sins of their biological parents, or of the parents who rear them?

Sins are what you do wrong in your life. They are not inherited. If your parents once shoplifted you will not be branded with that. Original sin is slightly diffrent. It is as a result of the fall. It is the human condition since the fall, since we are all decended of those who original sinned.

no, you don't seem to understand. yes, i realize human aren't perfect. why does that equate to "sin"? why is it wicked to be non-perfect?

To be perfect is to be without sin. Therefore if you are not perfect you must have sinned. I can turn it the other way round eaily

To be without sin is to be perfect. Therefore if you have sinned you are not perfect. Cemantics of language rearly. My point is that anything short of Jesus's life is not justification for heaven on the grounds of works. The only way you can work your way to heaven is to be exactly like Jesus. Since no one can, God created an alternive route to heaven.

Sins are what you do wrong in your life. They are not inherited. If your parents once shoplifted you will not be branded with that. Original sin is slightly diffrent. It is as a result of the fall. It is the human condition since the fall, since we are all decended of those who original sinned.
if we carry original sin because we all are decended from those who originally sinned, then you are saying sin is inhereted. or, at least, that ONE particular sin is inhereted.

my next question would then be: what about those of us who aren't decended from those who originally sinned? Adam and Eve had sons, and those sons married women who were not their sisters. this means there were humans on the planet who were NOT biological descendents of Adam and Eve. it is conceivable that there would be some people on Earth today who do not have Adam and Eve in their family tree. therefore, those people would not carry the sin that Adam and Eve committed, right?

A way that is ALSO unfair. A fair, omnipotent god will not create an unfair way, unless he's not fair or he's not omnipotent.

I did not say it was unfair. I just said people would think it was. It's not, but that does not stop you thinking it is.

I did not say it was unfair. I just said people would think it was. It's not, but that does not stop you thinking it is.

Prove to me that it isn't, then.

I did not say it was unfair. I just said people would think it was. It's not, but that does not stop you thinking it is.
The sky is red. You just think he's blue. In fact he's red, but that does not stop you thinking he's blue.

if we carry original sin because we all are decended from those who originally sinned, then you are saying sin is inhereted. or, at least, that ONE particular sin is inhereted.

my next question would then be: what about those of us who aren't decended from those who originally sinned? Adam and Eve had sons, and those sons married women who were not their sisters. this means there were humans on the planet who were NOT biological descendents of Adam and Eve. it is conceivable that there would be some people on Earth today who do not have Adam and Eve in their family tree. therefore, those people would not carry the sin that Adam and Eve committed, right?

I think you are misunderstanding original sin here as such. I think I am too so I will try and explain it a little better. The Garden of Eden was without sin and with God in a very personal way (God walked with them in the cool of the day). However sin pushed them out of Eden and so they were now outside Eden. Its not so much inherited sin as inherited circumstance. The circumstance being that we are now outside the place of sinlessnes and hence with sin. Not so much you with sin born into the world but you born into the world and the world being a place of sin. As for their being other humans on the planet, I am not sure of the biblical relevence of that. I will check.

The sky is red. You just think he's blue. In fact he's red, but that does not stop you thinking he's blue.

Flawed metaphor. Unlike coulor fairness is reletive.

To be perfect is to be without sin. Therefore if you are not perfect you must have sinned. I can turn it the other way round eaily

yes, i realize that someone who has sinned cannot be perfect. i get that. to be perfect is to be without flaw, and sin would qualify as a flaw. no problem there.

however, you cannot turn that right around. it is quite possible to have flaws other than sin, so one could be imperfect without having sinned. you are choosing to define "perfect" as meaning EXCLUSIVELY "without sin," but that is not what the word "perfect" actually means. it means without flaws, and not all flaws are sins. for instance, a flaw in a diamond isn't a sin. having a hair with a split end isn't a sin (unless you live in LA). many things may disqualify something from perfection, and not all of those things are sin.

put it this way: to be "black" something must be without the color red...if something is red, it cannot be black. however, you cannot make the reciprocal assertion that if something is not black it must be red.

Prove to me that it isn't, then.

If it was unfair, God would not have allowed us another chance into heaven. He would have left us be to die and go to hell with no way out. Fortunetly he is fair and gave us a way out. Salvation. It works like this

God: "Here is salvation. All you need to do to get it is accept that I am here and that I am giving it to you"

That seems simple to me.

yes, i realize that someone who has sinned cannot be perfect. i get that. to be perfect is to be without flaw, and sin would qualify as a flaw. no problem there.

however, you cannot turn that right around. it is quite possible to have flaws other than sin, so one could be imperfect without having sinned. you are choosing to define "perfect" as meaning EXCLUSIVELY "without sin," but that is not what the word "perfect" actually means. it means without flaws, and not all flaws are sins. for instance, a flaw in a diamond isn't a sin. having a hair with a split end isn't a sin (unless you live in LA). many things may disqualify something from perfection, and not all of those things are sin.

put it this way: to be "black" something must be without the color red...if something is red, it cannot be black. however, you cannot make the reciprocal assertion that if something is not black it must be red.

Ok I apologise, flawed wording.

I think you are misunderstanding original sin here as such. I think I am too so I will try and explain it a little better. The Garden of Eden was without sin and with God in a very personal way (God walked with them in the cool of the day). However sin pushed them out of Eden and so they were now outside Eden. Its not so much inherited sin as inherited circumstance. The circumstance being that we are now outside the place of sinlessnes and hence with sin. Not so much you with sin born into the world but you born into the world and the world being a place of sin. As for their being other humans on the planet, I am not sure of the biblical relevence of that. I will check.
okay, let me see if i get this right:

you are saying that we carry Original Sin not because we are descended from Adam and Eve, but because we were born outside of the Garden (in a place of sin) and therefore we are 'infected' with sin (more or less).

so some people we may or may not be related to did something bad, and God threw them out of the Garden and said no humans could ever be in the Garden again (until Heaven, if i understand the metaphor). because He has decreed that no people can get into the Garden (at least not during mortal life), this means that children will be born in the world of sin. God then considers these children sinful because they were born in the world of sin, even though He was the one who choose when and where they would be born, and even though they may not have any relationship whatsoever to the people who originally pissed God off?

i'm still not seeing how this is a fair system.

Flawed metaphor. Unlike coulor fairness is reletive.
According to you, it's not reletive because only God's understanding of justice counts and all who think otherwise are going straight to hell.

Ok I apologise, flawed wording.
whew, okay...that's one thing cleared up. thanks for being willing to concede that point, it's really mature of you (no sarcasm, honestly am pleased to see adult behavior around General, because it can be hard to find at times :)).

According to you, it's not reletive because only God's understanding of justice counts and all who think otherwise are going straight to hell.

No, I am speeking of the concept of fairness in general. In this case yes, fairness is reletive to the people we are dealing with. In this case since it is God, then considering who and what he is then yes. His fairness is supreme.

According to you, it's not reletive because only God's understanding of justice counts and all who think otherwise are going straight to hell.

That's his idea of justice. Justice is relative, as long as it's not HIS justice, and his justice involves innocents burning in Hell.

That's his idea of justice. Justice is relative, as long as it's not HIS justice, and his justice involves innocents burning in Hell.
buh? can you re-state that, possibly?

okay, let me see if i get this right:

you are saying that we carry Original Sin not because we are descended from Adam and Eve, but because we were born outside of the Garden (in a place of sin) and therefore we are 'infected' with sin (more or less).

so some people we may or may not be related to did something bad, and God threw them out of the Garden and said no humans could ever be in the Garden again (until Heaven, if i understand the metaphor). because He has decreed that no people can get into the Garden (at least not during mortal life), this means that children will be born in the world of sin. God then considers these children sinful because they were born in the world of sin, even though He was the one who choose when and where they would be born, and even though they may not have any relationship whatsoever to the people who originally pissed God off?

i'm still not seeing how this is a fair system.

Original sin is not something that, as far as I am aware, considering the Biblical relevence of it, that has much to do with salvation. The word "Sin" in it is a little misleading I think. Given what it means. The whole concept is extremely hard to comprehend exactly but suffice to say that said sin is not one that would alter your heaven/hell entry. At least not as I understand it. A better discription of it is the human condition. It makes a little more sense.

No, I am speeking of the concept of fairness in general. In this case yes, fairness is reletive to the people we are dealing with. In this case since it is God, then considering who and what he is then yes. His fairness is supreme.

The repulsive thing you call supreme fairness involves innocents burning in Hell. Involves something you yourself admitted is horrible. Unless you're living in the Bizarro world, where fair is foul and foul is fair, you can't claim fairness.

Original sin is not something that, as far as I am aware, considering the Biblical relevence of it, that has much to do with salvation. The word "Sin" in it is a little misleading I think. Given what it means. The whole concept is extremely hard to comprehend exactly but suffice to say that said sin is not one that would alter your heaven/hell entry. At least not as I understand it. A better discription of it is the human condition. It makes a little more sense.
so if Original Sin will not impact my chances of getting into heaven/hell, then why should i be concerned about it?

The repulsive thing you call supreme fairness involves innocents burning in Hell. Involves something you yourself admitted is horrible. Unless you're living in the Bizarro world, where fair is foul and foul is fair, you can't claim fairness.

That depends upon your definition of innoncents

so if Original Sin will not impact my chances of getting into heaven/hell, then why should i be concerned about it?

What it is is what causes us to be the way we are from birth (IE not like Adam and Eve). We are not like Adam and Eve because of the original sin, the human condition, call it what you will.

That depends upon your definition of innoncents
My definition includes that an atheist who didn't kill anybody in his whole life is more innocent than a christian, god-believing mass-murderer.

My definition includes that an atheist who didn't kill anybody in his whole life is more innocent than a christian, god-believing mass-murderer.

Agreed.
Danke schön...

My definition includes that an atheist who didn't kill anybody in his whole life is more innocent than a christian, god-believing mass-murderer.

Ah. The old "nice" athiest, "bad" Christian complex. This is to do with post 306's point 5. You might be intersted. Go read it. Better still I will post post 306 and see what you think

Salvation simplifed. You are saved if you do accept the following

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.

3&4) If you refuse to believe that there is a God and that he can and is willing to help you then what right do you have to expect any help from him. Thats rather like a friend sending you a letter attmepting to console you over a recent traumatic event, you sending a letter back to them saying you refuse to believe they exist and then expecting them to continue being friendly to you. God is there and God is willing. If you dont believe he exists he wont help you. It's the old line "Atheists don't believe in God don't they. Well God doesnt believe in Athiests". Why exactly should God help you if you dont believe he exists and that he can help you.

5) If you are aware of your sin (and if you are not you are very ignorent, see points one and two) and the fact that but do nothing about it, its rather like wearing the same clothes for an entire year despite having a full wardrobe and a fully working washing machine and a years supply of Ariel tablets. If you refuse to do anything about you sin, its akin to not accepting it is there in the first place and that is just stupid and ignorent (see point 1)

"Nice" athiest falls down at points 3 and 4, refusing to accept that their is a God

"Bad" Christian is more difficult. If someone does bad things but are aware of themselves being sinners and are sincere in their attempt to deal with it (even if they do not succed) then they are true Christians. Point 5 is the key. If you think "I am saved, I am safe, I dont need to worry about what I do from this point on" then you have not got a faithful attitude. Intentionally ignoring who God is and what he says is breaking point 5. Its a logical step rearly, you accept you do stuff wrong now. Ergo you have to now accept you should try and do stuff right.

Prove to me that it isn't, then.

If it was unfair, God would not have allowed us another chance into heaven. He would have left us be to die and go to hell with no way out. Fortunetly he is fair and gave us a way out. Salvation. It works like this

God: "Here is salvation. All you need to do to get it is accept that I am here and that I am giving it to you"

That seems simple to me.

Okay, so, as far as he's concerned, all it takes for Hitler to go to Heaven when Ghandi doesn't is:

"Whoops. My bad."

The bible says he was a man, and was not. The point is he was seperated out from the rest of us. He was not just another man born of man. He was a man born of God.
which as far as I can tell does not except his man side from origional sin

If you are not intersted in the Bible, why are you discussing it in a thread entitiled "Come get me pseudo CHRISTIANS". Also you make the following mistake. Christianity is not just about value systems and ethics. Christianity states that you cannot get into heaven via works because to do so you would have to live the life of Christ and you cant do that. So God came up with another way of getting into heaven.

My interest in the Bible is irrelevant here. As is what the Bible has to say about exclusive salvation; it's in there, and nobody's denying that. The question isn't whether or not the Bible says only Christians get into Heaven, as it pretty clearly does. Nor is the question whether or not there are passages which can be read as contradicting the previous statement, as there pretty clearly are. What we're asking you, is to justify this exclusive and frankly rather offensive belief, in moral terms, and in terms of the logic of the book in question (God is omnipotent, God is infinitely merciful, God allows people to be tortured for all eternity).

We know what you believe, and we know its a common Christian belief; that's where the thread came from in the first place. We're asking you to explain how you can believe these horrible things.


If anything, my idea of God is fairer than yours. Your idea of salvation via works is "Do X, Y, and Z good things then you can get into heaven". That to me sounds like

a) a very nasty and demanding God

b) meaning that your motives behind your good things would be self centred.

My idea of God and salvation is similarily irrelevant, although, for the record, if I were to squish it into Christian terminology, it would be that everybody gets into Heaven, no questions asked, and that good deeds are worth doing for their own merits. That would be infinite mercy, and if God is omnipotent, is well within his power to do.

Okay, so, as far as he's concerned, all it takes for Hitler to go to Heaven when Ghandi doesn't is:

"Whoops. My bad."

You seem to make it seem easy. It has to be a sincere acctence of the 5 points I have stated. I would suggest that someone who has done so much evil would find it far harder to accept those 5 points as the only reason I can see for them doing that evil is that they did not believe it was evil (that was not a justificiation for allowing them to do it. It was the explination of why they did it, in their minds. It does not make it right, but I can't see people chooseing to do such evil knowing that what they are doing is evil. They must therefore believe its good). If you sincerely accept that the 5 points I stated are true then you are saved.

Ah. The old "nice" athiest, "bad" Christian complex. This is to do with post 306's point 5. You might be intersted. Go read it. Better still I will post post 306 and see what you think

Salvation simplifed. You are saved if you do accept the following

Bottom line is that you believe a 'nice' athiest- or any non-christian- will be going to hell?

My idea of God and salvation is similarily irrelevant, although, for the record, if I were to squish it into Christian terminology, it would be that everybody gets into Heaven, no questions asked, and that good deeds are worth doing for their own merits. That would be infinite mercy, and if God is omnipotent, is well within his power to do.

So how is that any kind of justice? Those who dont even believe heaven exists are there? Why should they have access to it?

Bottom line is that you believe a 'nice' athiest- or any non-christian- will be going to hell?

Yes. I now predict you will say that thats unfair. And it would be if hell and hevan were in any way reletive to works. However they are not.

Agreed.
Danke schön...
You may excuse if I stole your point again. It's just too satisfying for my evil, amoral atheist essence.^^

"Bad" Christian is more difficult. If someone does bad things but are aware of themselves being sinners and are sincere in their attempt to deal with it (even if they do not succed) then they are true Christians. Point 5 is the key. If you think "I am saved, I am safe, I dont need to worry about what I do from this point on" then you have not got a faithful attitude. Intentionally ignoring who God is and what he says is breaking point 5. Its a logical step rearly, you accept you do stuff wrong now. Ergo you have to now accept you should try and do stuff right.
Ergo I can be evil in my whole life time, except on it's very end where I have to accept that killing people and being an asshole wasn't exactly what God wanted and that it is NOW the time to change my mind, then I die and God forgives me.
Merciful? Yes.
Just? No.
Just if you consider that atheists who weren't such assholes as I was in lifetime are burning in hell? Absolutely no.

So how is that any kind of justice?
How is your idea of God's essence any kind of mercy?

How is your idea of God's essence any kind of mercy?

Because people are not judged on what they do in their lifetime. They are judged on how they respond to what they do in their lifetime, and how they deal with it in terms of God. If someone is sinning with no regard for what they are doing and do not care about it they are going to hell becaues they are ignoring God. On the other had if someone is sinning but making a genuine attempt to stop and is repentiful to God then they will be in heaven. The mercy is in the fact that he is not judging us on sin, but on our response to sin. God knows we all sin, we cant help that. What is in our control is our reactions to it and to him and the way we deal with sin.

Yes. I now predict you will say that thats unfair. And it would be if hell and hevan were in any way reletive to works. However they are not.
No from that I take that it is not fair

Therefore the christian god is not just

Ergo I can be evil in my whole life time, except on it's very end where I have to accept that killing people and being an asshole wasn't exactly what God wanted and that it is NOW the time to change my mind, then I die and God forgives me.
Merciful? Yes.
Just? No.
Just if you consider that atheists who weren't such assholes as I was in lifetime are burning in hell? Absolutely no.


If you could sincerely accept salvation then yes. I suspect though that it would be extremely difficult for you to sincerely deal with a lifetime of evil at the end of your life. You seem to fail to understand that often the older you become, the harder it is to accept these 5 statements. It is never impossible, but it can be difficult. If you lived a life of evil and then repent at the end, you would essentially be invalidating your entire life experiance as labeling it "evil" where as presumable all your experiance up to that point told you otherwise. While that is possible it is no easy thing to do.

Yes. I now predict you will say that thats unfair. And it would be if hell and hevan were in any way reletive to works. However they are not.


Not quite.

What of a non-christian who is taught/believes that to belive any other way is akin to blashphemy upon God and therefore would never convert?

Again you are jumping outside the grounds here. You are asking about other religions in a discussion about Christianity. Please stop it since the thread is entitled with the words "CHRISTIANS"

Does Christianity exist in a vacuum? You're saying that God is just because he gave us an obvious way out of this mess, I'm saying that there is no obvious way, that in this world of God's creation we have more religions than I can count, almost without exception internally consistent and logical, and not a single one with a shred of evidence as to its veracity. Given a list of every active religion on Earth, there is nothing in Christianity that makes it jump out and proclaim that it is the correct path. If God provided it as the one way to overcome our horrible, sinful natures, he needs to hire someone to do his marketing for him. Regardless of what you believe, the world provides no easy answers in this matter, and to say otherwise is to be deliberately blind.

The situation is not of his causation. IE he did not intend it to be like it is. He wanted it to be like the garden of Eden was. Had he wanted the earth like it is now he would have made it like it is now (Note: We are going into the dangerous territory of the compex diffrences between God's plan and God's will. I will explain it if need be but keep in mind it does get very complicated). But he made it perfect. An all powerful God is hardly moraly liable for everything that happens ever. On the grounds that God gave us free will. God knows everything that will happen of course, but he did not cause it to happen.

But when God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden with a big neon sign saying "Do not under any circumstances eat this tasty, tempting fruit", and then let a smooth-talking serpent into the garden to talk to Eve, he knew what would result. Can you honestly think otherwise?

And if he knows absolutely everything that will happen, and has infinite power to do absolutely anything at absolutely any time, then things happen because he allows them to. Free-will is all well and good, but any injustice in those matters he has sole jurisdiction over (i.e. things that mortal humanity cannot directly interfere with, where free will is not an issue: the afterlife) he is responsible for. It is certainly within his power to prevent good people from going to Hell, so we can only believe that he chooses not to.

Further more, it is not true to say that these personal failings are anything minor. You are comparing these things to people. When compared to other people they may be minor. But compared to God, they are massive. That is what you have to keep in mind at this point. God did indeed set up the system for salvation but its hardly an unfair one. Its just this

"Here is salvation, all you need to do to take it is accept that you need it and that I can and am giving it to you"

I refuse to believe that failure to believe in God is anything but a minor failing. It hurts nobody, it causes no conceivable harm. Yet it is the one crime, according to you, that will guarantee an eternity of torment.

As for the comparisons to God, they're meaningless. If God is an impossible standard to meet, then it seems rather unfair for him to punish us for not living up to it (as he is doing when he demands that we go through his son to reach him, as penance for not being perfect). It is within his power to draw people up to Heaven despite their imperfections.

(I will take this opportunity to thank you for continuing to carry on this discussion in a mature and reasonable fashion, despite the abuse we are heaping on what you believe. I have no respect whatsoever for most of the ideals you are expressing, but a great deal for your conduct thus far ;))

If you could sincerely accept salvation then yes. I suspect though that it would be extremely difficult for you to sincerely deal with a lifetime of evil at the end of your life. You seem to fail to understand that often the older you become, the harder it is to accept these 5 statements. It is never impossible, but it can be difficult. If you lived a life of evil and then repent at the end, you would essentially be invalidating your entire life experiance as labeling it "evil" where as presumable all your experiance up to that point told you otherwise. While that is possible it is no easy thing to do
A-ha, the meaner you are in life, the more difficult it becomes to repent. Which means that for the really evil ones it is nearly impossible to earn salvation.
But wasn't you saying:
God: "Here is salvation. All you need to do to get it is accept that I am here and that I am giving it to you"

That seems simple to me.
Seems a little bit invalid now, in my opinion.

No from that I take that it is not fair

Therefore the christian god is not just

The system is fair if it is based on faith and not works. You are now saying that its unfair to be based of faith.

Let me explain. It is indeed possible to get to God's standards of heavenlyness by faith. However to do so you would have to lead your entire life without sin. Since you cant do that, God provided an altentive route to heavenlyness. This system is far fairer than the works one because you can achivee it. Tell me, how would you run the good works system if you were God?

So how is that any kind of justice? Those who dont even believe heaven exists are there? Why should they have access to it?

Because the only other place for them to be is Hell, and nobody, not the worst, goat-raping, idol-worshiping, pot-smoking, baby seal-clubbing pederast adulterer used car salesman in history deserves that. And because people who were wrong about Heaven's existence shouldn't be condemned for short-sightedness.

And because, frankly, fuck justice. I'll take, and give, mercy any day of the week :)

The system is fair if it is based on faith and not works. You are now saying that its unfair to be based of faith.

Let me explain. It is indeed possible to get to God's standards of heavenlyness by faith. However to do so you would have to lead your entire life without sin. Since you cant do that, God provided an altentive route to heavenlyness. This system is far fairer than the works one because you can achivee it. Tell me, how would you run the good works system if you were God?
Not sure but assuming I was god I would have greater knoledge (and hopefully come up with something better then "believe in me" as the qualifier)

A-ha, the meaner you are in life, the more difficult it becomes to repent. Which means that for the really evil ones it is nearly impossible to earn salvation.
But wasn't you saying:

Seems a little bit invalid now, in my opinion.

You misinterpret me. God's values are always the same, but you personally may find it harder to achive them if you have a very evil life. It may be hard for you to reconsile yourself to being sincere about something like that. God's standards are the same. Its just it may be harder for you to achive them later in life. Its not God going "hmm, he's nastier now, will have to make it harder for him"

Because the only other place for them to be is Hell, and nobody, not the worst, goat-raping, idol-worshiping, pot-smoking, baby seal-clubbing pederast adulterer used car salesman in history deserves that. And because people who were wrong about Heaven's existence shouldn't be condemned for short-sightedness.
Exactly. If I want to get into a night club, and the owner doesn't like me, I simply go to another club, or back home. He doesn't send me to a place of infinite torment.

You misinterpret me. God's values are always the same, but you personally may find it harder to achive them if you have a very evil life. It may be hard for you to reconsile yourself to being sincere about something like that. God's standards are the same. Its just it may be harder for you to achive them later in life. Its not God going "hmm, he's nastier now, will have to make it harder for him"
You said that it would seem "simple", but it isn't, when you can't achieve God's values when you was an evil person.

Actually, I think you should refer to Mockston's points. They are better than mine.^^

Exactly. If I want to get into a night club, and the owner doesn't like me, I simply go to another club, or back home. He doesn't send me to a place of infinite torment.

He doesn't? The owner of the club Canen would like to go to does. :)

Not sure but assuming I was god I would have greater knoledge (and hopefully come up with something better then "believe in me" as the qualifier)

Thing is, the problem with any kind of other works qualifier (based presumably on the quantitity and quality of good works) is that the only one who would be able to understand it would be God. So many factors and situational inputs come into how "good" a good work is and so a human would need a full and compelte knowledge of this system to keep charts on how well they are doing. Seeing as how complex that kind and ammount of infomation is, you would be condeming all those who could not understand it to hell.

Let's try this another way. Let's talk benevolence. You say we don't live up to God's standards, let's try God against mine.

If every single person who didn't believe in him caused God pain akin to having a two-by-four wrapped in razor-wire shoved through his stomach and vigorously swiveled, and every sin made him feel like exacto-knives were scraping out the hollows of his ears, he should still prevent everyone from going to Hell for all eternity. He's the only one who can, and this gives him the moral obligation to do so. This is the selflessness and mercy I expect from perfect divinity, and this is how I hope I would act should I be elected God.

(now, I probably wouldn't, but that's why He's God and I'm not, right? He's better at turning the other cheek)

Thing is, the problem with any kind of other works qualifier (based presumably on the quantitity and quality of good works) is that the only one who would be able to understand it would be God. So many factors and situational inputs come into how "good" a good work is and so a human would need a full and compelte knowledge of this system to keep charts on how well they are doing. Seeing as how complex that kind and ammount of infomation is, you would be condeming all those who could not understand it to hell.
But couldent you say that about your level of “belief” in god? Weight charts on specific instances when you believe in him and which are a stronger belief?

I know you turned it into a binary

You do or don’t

But could you not turn good works into a Boolean

You do enough good works
You don’t do enough


Really both can be Boolean and both can be sliding scale

Does Christianity exist in a vacuum? You're saying that God is just because he gave us an obvious way out of this mess, I'm saying that there is no obvious way, that in this world of God's creation we have more religions than I can count, almost without exception internally consistent and logical, and not a single one with a shred of evidence as to its veracity. Given a list of every active religion on Earth, there is nothing in Christianity that makes it jump out and proclaim that it is the correct path. If God provided it as the one way to overcome our horrible, sinful natures, he needs to hire someone to do his marketing for him. Regardless of what you believe, the world provides no easy answers in this matter, and to say otherwise is to be deliberately blind.


1) If God were to make it ridiculously obvious which path to choose
a) It would not be a choice, in the same way that gravity is not a choice
b) It would not be faith

2) It's not Gods fault that loads of other people come up with their own ideas and distribute them as religion

(As it happens I believe Chrisitanity does have something seperating it. It is a religion that does not say "you can work your way up to God" it says "God has worked for you so you can get to him")


But when God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden with a big neon sign saying "Do not under any circumstances eat this tasty, tempting fruit", and then let a smooth-talking serpent into the garden to talk to Eve, he knew what would result. Can you honestly think otherwise?

And if he knows absolutely everything that will happen, and has infinite power to do absolutely anything at absolutely any time, then things happen because he allows them to. Free-will is all well and good, but any injustice in those matters he has sole jurisdiction over (i.e. things that mortal humanity cannot directly interfere with, where free will is not an issue: the afterlife) he is responsible for. It is certainly within his power to prevent good people from going to Hell, so we can only believe that he chooses not to.


This is a confusion many people get to do with the concepts of God's will and God's plan

Gods will = What God wants to happen, IE that everyone would come to know him, that everyone would lead lives as he taught them etc

God's plan = Events that God allows/disallows to happen, sometimes for his own ends. These can include answers to prayer

There are things in God's plan which are contary to Gods will. It was not part of God's will that Eve would sin, but it was what God allowed to happen so it can be said to be part of God's plan.

As for your point about "good" people, God does see good in people but that good is not up to his standard. If you want to do good enough "works" to get to heaven, you have to live the life of Jesus. Anything less would be sin. Due to the nature of sin and the nature of God, a person with sin cannot enter heaven. Fortunetly for us, God has a way to remove all sin so we can be in heaven.


I refuse to believe that failure to believe in God is anything but a minor failing. It hurts nobody, it causes no conceivable harm. Yet it is the one crime, according to you, that will guarantee an eternity of torment.


Either I was unclear or you misinterpreted. Either way, the major failing I was refering to was sin. Sin can be dealt with as I have said. What cannot be dealt with is a refusal to deal with sin because that means you believe yourself to be without fault or that the faults are not signifcient enough for you to do anything about them. The failure to believe in God may cause no harm to people, but to God it is a considerable flaw. And since God is the one in charge of heaven/hell who do you think it is important to consider.


As for the comparisons to God, they're meaningless. If God is an impossible standard to meet, then it seems rather unfair for him to punish us for not living up to it (as he is doing when he demands that we go through his son to reach him, as penance for not being perfect). It is within his power to draw people up to Heaven despite their imperfections.


Fortunetly for us, God made a way of dealing with sin which did not involve being him. We dont need to be as good as God to get to heaven. We just need to believe God can make us as good as God.

It is within his power however it is not just. God is just.


(I will take this opportunity to thank you for continuing to carry on this discussion in a mature and reasonable fashion, despite the abuse we are heaping on what you believe. I have no respect whatsoever for most of the ideals you are expressing, but a great deal for your conduct thus far ;))

Thank you

But couldent you say that about your level of “belief” in god? Weight charts on specific instances when you believe in him and which are a stronger belief?

I know you turned it into a binary

You do or don’t

But could you not turn good works into a Boolean

You do enough good works
You don’t do enough


Really both can be Boolean and both can be sliding scale

Yes but the diffrence is that in order to know how many/how good good works you must do you would have to have an immensely complicated set of guidelines, detailing all situations and the diffrent level's of resorces availble in each and the motives behind said deads would also come into account, along with the results of said deads and your own reaction etc etc. As I have demostrated the faith you need for acceptence by the system I am describing is simple

God: "I am offering you salvation, you can have it. All you need to do to get it is to accept that you are flawed and so need it and I am here giving it to you freely"

Let's try this another way. Let's talk benevolence. You say we don't live up to God's standards, let's try God against mine.

If every single person who didn't believe in him caused God pain akin to having a two-by-four wrapped in razor-wire shoved through his stomach and vigorously swiveled, and every sin made him feel like exacto-knives were scraping out the hollows of his ears, he should still prevent everyone from going to Hell for all eternity. He's the only one who can, and this gives him the moral obligation to do so. This is the selflessness and mercy I expect from perfect divinity, and this is how I hope I would act should I be elected God.

(now, I probably wouldn't, but that's why He's God and I'm not, right? He's better at turning the other cheek)

Why does the fact that he is the only one caperbile of doing it give him a kind of moral obligation to do it for everyone. If people dont accept who God is then they are turning their back on him. And though he may love them, he cannot force them to have salvation if they dont accept it.

Why does the fact that he is the only one caperbile of doing it give him a kind of moral obligation to do it for everyone. If people dont accept who God is then they are turning their back on him. And though he may love them, he cannot force them to have salvation if they dont accept it.

(mild allusion to Mencius)

If you see a child about to fall into a well, do you have a moral obligation to save the child? Even if the child doesn't particularily like you or even know you?

If you see someone about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, are you morally obligated to try to talk them down, or hold them back if they won't listen to you? Even if this is a person you've never met? Even if this is the person you dislike most in the entire world? Even if they don't want to be saved?

(if you said no to any of the above questions, then we don't have much to talk about, in a moral sense)

Why should God be held to lower standards than a human being?

(more to say, but I've gotta go. Be back tonight or tomorrow to see how the discussion's going)

(mild allusion to Mencius)

If you see a child about to fall into a well, do you have a moral obligation to save the child? Even if the child doesn't particularily like you or even know you?

If you see someone about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, are you morally obligated to try to talk them down, or hold them back if they won't listen to you? Even if this is a person you've never met? Even if this is the person you dislike most in the entire world? Even if they don't want to be saved?

(if you said no to any of the above questions, then we don't have much to talk about, in a moral sense)

Why should God be held to lower standards than a human being?

(more to say, but I've gotta go. Be back tonight or tomorrow to see how the discussion's going)

A jury is the only one with the power to save a man from prision. Does that give the jury the moral obligation of saving him?

A jury is the only one with the power to save a man from prision. Does that give the jury the moral obligation of saving him?

Depends. Has the man ACTUALLY COMMITED A CRIME or does the man simply, for whatever reason, doesn't think the jury exists? Because if a jury condemns a man without him having commited a crime, only because the man doubted the jury's existance, it's ground for anullment.

Depends. Has the man ACTUALLY COMMITED A CRIME or does the man simply, for whatever reason, doesn't think the jury exists? Because if a jury condemns a man without him having commited a crime, only because the man doubted the jury's existance, it's ground for anullment.

I feel at this point I should clarify something for you people. God does not consider lack of belief in him a crime as such. Lack of belief is not a sin in itself. However what lack of belief does is mean that your sin is still with you and hence you will go to hell. I may have made this unclear but God does not send you to heaven or hell on the basis of wheter or not you beleive but on the basis of sin. If you believe and accept salvation your sin is gone so you will be saved. But refusing to believe of itself is not a sin. It will just mean that all your other sins actually will count agaisnt you at the end.

I feel at this point I should clarify something for you people. God does not consider lack of belief in him a crime as such. Lack of belief is not a sin in itself. However what lack of belief does is mean that your sin is still with you and hence you will go to hell. I may have made this unclear but God does not send you to heaven or hell on the basis of wheter or not you beleive but on the basis of sin. If you believe and accept salvation your sin is gone so you will be saved. But refusing to believe of itself is not a sin. It will just mean that all your other sins actually will count agaisnt you at the end.

See, in this case we're talking about a man that DID commit a crime and that walks by acknowledging that the jury exists. Again, mistrial.

See, in this case we're talking about a man that DID commit a crime and that walks by acknowledging that the jury exists. Again, mistrial.

Its what is known as a metaphor. You querried me on it and I answered your query. The metaphor was supposed to deal with Mockston's point, not yours. In any case if you have got to the trial stage (God deciding whether you go to hevaen or hell) its a little late for you to admit God exists and expect to be pardoned. My original point was to rebut Mockston's point which was "whenever you are in a situation where you can save someone you should do so" and I said no because of my Jury example.

Its what is known as a metaphor. You querried me on it and I answered your query. The metaphor was supposed to deal with Mockston's point, not yours. In any case if you have got to the trial stage (God deciding whether you go to hevaen or hell) its a little late for you to admit God exists and expect to be pardoned.

Does not hold water.

Does not hold water.

Can you explain why? That kind of arbitary non explained statement suggests to me you have't got an answer. I may be wrong but I am curious as to why you just said "Does not hold water" as useually you are so much more vocal.

You would not need a complex set of guidelines to judge what to do if salvation was based on works. All you would need would be a list of good and bad things. Stealing is bad, killing people is bad, giving to the poor is good, helping people out is good, that sort of thing, you know, which is covered to some extent in... THE BIBLE!

Were I God I would accept into heaven all those who intended to help their fellow man as much as themselves, send all those who intended to help themselves more than their fellow man to be reincarnated and try again, and send all those who sought to hurt their fellow man for the betterment of themselves to hell for a period of time, and then reincarnate them to try again. Ghandi would be in heaven, and the Crusaders who raped and murdered would be in hell.

What you are saying is that all humans are inherently evil, and that only by accepting God can anyone escape hell. A God who would punish a person with eternal hellfire for not accepting him is EVIL. I would not worship such a God. whether or not he existed. A God who condemned Ghandi for not seeing that the Bible was the truth, for making a mistake, an error, is EVIL. A god who would look upon me, say "That man does not follow me, rather he seeks to find his own way through life, live by his own moral code rather than accept the code of others. I will CAST him into HELL for his HERESY!" is EVIL! I would never lower myself to worshipping that which is evil.

Hell exists because God made it, and whether he casts nonbelievers into Hell, they are there because of him. If a man is about to die and all you have to do to stop him is will for him to live, and you know this, it is YOUR FAULT if he dies, as much as if you had killed him. I am not demanding that Ghandi, or hell, even I am allowed into heaven despite not believing in God, but I am saying it is unjust, wrong, EVIL that I, or Ghandi, or any nonchristian should burn forever. Were we given a second chance to see something we did not previously see, were we left to wander, were we extinguised, it would not be so unjust, it might even be acceptable.

I hold your God to my own standards and find him wanting.

Can you explain why? That kind of arbitary non explained statement suggests to me you have't got an answer. I may be wrong but I am curious as to why you just said "Does not hold water" as useually you are so much more vocal.

I was (am) kinda busy.
Doesn't hold water because God is supposedly merciful enough to "delay" the judgement, AND powerful enough to do so, yet by denying he does so you deny one of these statements.

Just cause I'm wondering.....if someone converts u to a religion which turns out to be incorrect...despite you initially believing in the correct religion...do you get blamed for their brainwashing and therefore sent to whatever equivalent of hell is accurate? Coz u know, little bit harsh that.

I have to say that you are responsible for your own actions.

I was (am) kinda busy.
Doesn't hold water because God is supposedly merciful enough to "delay" the judgement, AND powerful enough to do so, yet by denying he does so you deny one of these statements.

Without judgement He wouldn't be just. Salvation is a gift, not an obligation.

Without judgement He wouldn't be just. Salvation is a gift, not an obligation.

We've established that it's unjust not to save people with great deeds, regardless of creed. If he doesn't do that, he's already unjust.

We've established that it's unjust not to save people with great deeds, regardless of creed. If he doesn't do that, he's already unjust.

No, it's unjust to save people with great deeds. I'll say once again, "faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone!"

It doesn't matter what we DO. It's not work righteousness. No one can do ANYTHING that contributes to the salvation of their soul.

Good to know there's a way for the child rapists to go to heaven while Ghandi burns.

What's unjust is eternal damnation. It's not that God doesn't save nonbelieves, it's that he DAMNS them. to hell. to burn for eternity. etc.

No, it's unjust to save people with great deeds. I'll say once again, "faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone!"

It doesn't matter what we DO. It's not work righteousness. No one can do ANYTHING that contributes to the salvation of their soul.

You see, justice is good rewarded by good. Anything other than that is injustice. So, since injustice is NOT justice, this would not be just.

You see, justice is good rewarded by good. Anything other than that is injustice. So, since injustice is NOT justice, this would not be just.

Again, you seem to believe that there are some people who are good. We cannnot redeem ourselves.

Romans 3
God's Faithfulness

No One is Righteous
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. All have turned away,
they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good,
not even one.” “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

So to you all of humanity is evil.
Worthless.
Sinful.
You believe that you cannot hold yourself above hitler, above pol pot. And more importantly, above me. You are no better than I am by your own admission, we are both equal in our worthlessness. The only difference, in your eyes, is that you've taken God's "Way out" by believing in him and accepting him. I have not admitted that I am evil, and so I will burn eternally.

Also, if we are all worthless and evil, what does it matter if we sin, if we steal, if we kill, if we rape and pillage and take what we want?

My only alternative is to believe that you are wrong. That we have worth without it being given to us, that we can create our own. You would see the Idea of human achievement as the greatest of heresies, for what is any achievement in the eyes of God?

Again, you seem to believe that there are some people who are good. We cannnot redeem ourselves.

Romans 3
God's Faithfulness

No One is Righteous
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. All have turned away,
they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good,
not even one.” “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

See, I can also use the parts of the bible I want. Only, my point is much more likely to be true than yours, since justice is good deed rewarded with good deed. Ghandi's rightful place is heaven, and no spiteful god will be able to change that.

So to you all of humanity is evil.
Worthless.
Sinful.
You believe that you cannot hold yourself above hitler, above pol pot. And more importantly, above me. You are no better than I am by your own admission, we are both equal in our worthlessness. The only difference, in your eyes, is that you've taken God's "Way out" by believing in him and accepting him. I have not admitted that I am evil, and so I will burn eternally.

I said, pages ago,
We are all born spiritually dead. You, me, Hitler, St. Paul. The true message of Christianity, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for our sins, washes us clean and gives us new, everlasting life. We cannot earn this through social work. We cannot earn salvation through ANY work. We can only trust in God.

Is this vanity? No. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I am just as perverse as a child molester, just as sinful as a murderer. If we weren't sinners, we wouldn't need salvation. You've just cornered yourself into a Catch-22 where those who need salvation are too impure to receive it, while those who are pure don't need it in the first place. God doesn't work like that. He loves mankind and wants everyone to come to faith.

See, I can also use the parts of the bible I want. Only, my point is much more likely to be true than yours, since justice is good deed rewarded with good deed. Ghandi's rightful place is heaven, and no spiteful god will be able to change that.

Please, use the Bible. I can't really argue with that, can I? We'll quibble about interpretation, but that's fine.

As for Ghandi, did Ghandi ever sin?

Also, if we are all worthless and evil, what does it matter if we sin, if we steal, if we kill, if we rape and pillage and take what we want?

Read Romans 3, which I just posted.

"Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

Have you ever read a book called "the Faith of the Fallen" by Terry Goodkind? In it, there's a government called The Order, who believe that humanity is worthless, sinful, vile and evil, and can only be saved by the light and grace of the creator. This way of thinking was used to oppress thousands of people, to justify mass executions, to say that since all people are worthless, that it did not matter what happened to them. That rape, murder, torture, none of these things are wrong. THAT is what you stand for, and that is why I fight it.

Have you ever read a book called "the Faith of the Fallen" by Terry Goodkind? In it, there's a government called The Order, who believe that humanity is worthless, sinful, vile and evil, and can only be saved by the light and grace of the creator. This way of thinking was used to oppress thousands of people, to justify mass executions, to say that since all people are worthless, that it did not matter what happened to them. That rape, murder, torture, none of these things are wrong. THAT is what you stand for, and that is why I fight it.

I've never argued that the law can be thrown out. We need Law AND Gospel. I don't know much about Terry Goodkind, but I do know St. Paul.

Romans 3:7-8
"7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved."

Romans 6:1-4
"1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

But what is the point of law if we are worthless?
What is the point of achievement if we are worthless?
What is the point of anything if our only apparent purpose is to accept Jesus's path into heaven?

But what is the point of law if we are worthless?
What is the point of achievement if we are worthless?
What is the point of anything if our only apparent purpose is to accept Jesus's path into heaven?

Moreover, what's the point of fairness if God isn't?

But what is the point of law if we are worthless?
What is the point of achievement if we are worthless?
What is the point of anything if our only apparent purpose is to accept Jesus's path into heaven?

That is the point.

Without Jesus there is no point. We try to make one but ultimately we fail. Its sad that people think they need morethan the love of God to be content...

Well, can you survive on nothing bu the love of God? Just try it, don't eat more than you have to, don't do anything for pleasure, just lie one the ground thinking "God loves me. That's all I need."
lucky if you last a day.

That is the point.

Without Jesus there is no point. We try to make one but ultimately we fail. Its sad that people think they need morethan the love of God to be content...

Yeah, right, what's the point of NOT killing, of doing charity, of helping others, of, you know, being a decent human being...

Moreover, what's the point of fairness if God isn't?

How come everytime i come on to this thread you are talking about fairness? Were you slighted insome way by god that you just cannot get over?

But your right, God is not fair, he's merciful. If he was fair , everyone would be in hell because thats what we deserve, that is what is fair.
But since God loves us and wants us to go to heaven he gave us his son. Is that fair? Not to god. and its more than fair to us.

Now are you mad be cause of the billions who havent heard the gospel? Well we all live in rebellion. we all choose to not beleive in God. God has to imploreus to come back. NOw we can argue on how the lost are or arenot reached but i hate arguing on forums. I speak better than i type.

Finally, can this thread end? Honestly. I know we all differ, but im not going to ever convince you on this thread of my faith and yourgauntleted challenge sure as heck didnt win any brownie points with me. Any who. have a wonderful night

But what is the point of law if we are worthless? I found this. It's from a pastor from my synod.

Allow me to begin by listing the first two uses of the law "on the way" to the third.

The first use of the law is what we often call the law as "curb." Through fear of punishment, the law keeps the sinful nature of both believer and unbeliever under check. This does not stop sin, since the sin is already committed when the heart desires to do what is wrong--yet it does stop the open outbreak of sin that will do even further damage. For example, this is the use of the law that the government, as God's servant, uses to keep order in society as it serves as "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer" (Romans 13:4). As long as I have a sinful nature, I will, sadly, still need the law to function as a curb to help me put down my old sinful nature.

The second use of the law is what we often call the law as "mirror." Here the law serves as a perfect reflection of what God created the human heart and life to be. By shining that perfect reflection my way and then comparing that to my own heart and life, I am convinced how hideously far short I have fallen from the perfection God created me to have. This use of the law prepares me to hear the freeing message of the gospel that announces that Christ has lived that law perfectly in my place (and given to me that righteousness I could never live) and has died to take the curse the law pronounces upon my sin.

Now, comes the use you have asked about. The third use of the law is what we often call the law as "guide." Here is a unique use of the law that applies only to the believer. In the first two uses of the law ("curb" and "mirror") the law serves as my master, standing over me and threatening me with threats of punishment and condemnations for my sinfulness. However, here the law becomes my helper. Empowered by the gospel truth of forgiveness and righteousness in Christ, the believer's new self (created in us when we were brought to faith) eagerly desires to live to please the Triune God he now knows as Father, Brother, and Counselor.

However, because we live in a sin filled world, and because we as believers still possess a sinful nature, we can often become confused as to what really are the good works that God "has prepared in advance for us to do" (Ephesians 2:10). The law then serves as our assistant as it confirms for us what is truly good and right in God's eyes. It helps us make sure we do not set out on a course of self-chosen works instead of the paths God himself has given us in which to run now that he has set our hearts free.

In summary, the third use of the law is the use the believer makes of the law as it helps him to be sure what is the best way to freely devote his life as a child of God to the God who saved him. It is not the law as master standing over us (curb and mirror). It is the law as assistant standing next to us.


What is the point of achievement if we are worthless?There is a distinction that needs to be made here between motives for work. Christians work as a Response, others work as an action to get favor. Read those Bible verses again. Why was Babel destroyed- because it was tall? No, it was a monument to Man's pride. We achieve because we are to live godly, productive lives, not to fuel our egos or make up for things.

What is the point of anything if our only apparent purpose is to accept Jesus's path into heaven? What good is it if a man gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? That should be our biggest priority, no? But again, that doesn't mean that I sit in my home all day and read the Bible. There's a point to life. God has a plan.

How come everytime i come on to this thread you are talking about fairness? Were you slighted insome way by god that you just cannot get over?

But your right, God is not fair, he's merciful. If he was fair , everyone would be in hell because thats what we deserve, that is what is fair.
But since God loves us and wants us to go to heaven he gave us his son. Is that fair? Not to god. and its more than fair to us.

Now are you mad be cause of the billions who havent heard the gospel? Well we all live in rebellion. we all choose to not beleive in God. God has to imploreus to come back. NOw we can argue on how the lost are or arenot reached but i hate arguing on forums. I speak better than i type.

Finally, can this thread end? Honestly. I know we all differ, but im not going to ever convince you on this thread of my faith and yourgauntleted challenge sure as heck didnt win any brownie points with me. Any who. have a wonderful night

No, the thread cannot end. You're free to come or go however.

Yeah, right, what's the point of NOT killing, of doing charity, of helping others, of, you know, being a decent human being...

If i wasnt a christian and i was charitable...i would do it because it made me feel good. I dont kill cause i would feel bad if i did. I might kill so i could get something. The common thread at least for me is to make me feel good somehow. even other religions lead to improving the self. Buddism, Islam, and Taoism all do things to make the self better or get something. I beleive Christianity does not. I am not 'good' becasue im getting something but becasue i want others to go to heaven.

I dont worship Jesus to give me heaven but for sparing me hell

If i wasnt a christian and i was charitable...i would do it because it made me feel good. I dont kill cause i would feel bad if i did. I might kill so i could get something. The common thread at least for me is to make me feel good somehow. even other religions lead to improving the self. Buddism, Islam, and Taoism all do things to make the self better or get something. I beleive Christianity does not. I am not 'good' becasue im getting something but becasue i want others to go to heaven.

I dont worship Jesus to give me heaven but for sparing me hell

How much do you know about ANY other religions?

How come everytime i come on to this thread you are talking about fairness? Were you slighted insome way by god that you just cannot get over?

But your right, God is not fair, he's merciful. If he was fair , everyone would be in hell because thats what we deserve, that is what is fair.
But since God loves us and wants us to go to heaven he gave us his son. Is that fair? Not to god. and its more than fair to us.

Now are you mad be cause of the billions who havent heard the gospel? Well we all live in rebellion. we all choose to not beleive in God. God has to imploreus to come back. NOw we can argue on how the lost are or arenot reached but i hate arguing on forums. I speak better than i type.

Finally, can this thread end? Honestly. I know we all differ, but im not going to ever convince you on this thread of my faith and yourgauntleted challenge sure as heck didnt win any brownie points with me. Any who. have a wonderful night

It's a fair bit more than a slight to be condemned to burn eternally. but anyway.

I find that I can no longer really argue, because your idea that human beings are inherently worthless is so far against all that I stand for and believe in that I cannot accept it, I cannot even open my mind to the idea. Down that path of thought, to me, lies only desolation and despair. If we are worthless, then there IS no point. That fundamental concept of human worth is what drives me, the only thing that makes anything seem worthwhile. Since we have this fundamental disparity which cannot be proven one way or the other, there is no more point to debate, beyond each of us shouting how utterly wrong the other is. Your words ring falsely in my ears, and I cringe to think of them, because down that path is where I see the spiritual death mentioned earlier in this thread.

You believe that we are worthless and must be given worth by an outside being, your God. I believe that we have our own worth, that we create it ourselves, by acheiving our dreams and helping along the dreams of others. From your point of view, it would be a far better world if people were killed moments after accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.

And you call that fair because...?
Do you really think it's fair for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't? And I do not have the idea that God hates everyone non-christian, I DO have the idea that there are some idiots that think that and call themselves "christians".

Ignorance, apparently, is not something found only among hard-line christians. ofcourse, the previous statement is really only common sense. So is the previous statement. That said, let me enlighten those of you who find this entire concept rather difficult to comprehend.

First off, a christian child molester, such as a corrupt priest, will not be allowed into heaven. Simply put, if he is living a life of sin, and refuses to change it, then he is a "lukewarm" christian, and the Bible specifically states that God will spit them out of his mouth. Simply being repenting and baptized does not guarantee instant salvation.

Now, some will claim that baptism is not necessary. I don't feel like debating the point. I only know that in the New Testament Jesus himself was baptized, and after his death every single other new christian "repents and is baptized." If you disagree, good for you. Now worth arguing about.

Now, unfortunately, although there are atheists out there who are very nice people, I'm afraid that simply is not enough. Whether it seems fair or not is immaterial. I recently had a very good friend of mine die in a car accident. it wasn't her fault, but her and her boyfriend were killed by a drunk driver. Neither were christians, although they were some of the nicest people I know. However, they were also avowed atheists. Didn't believe a word of the Bible. Try as I might, I never could get either of them to come to church. You have absolutely no idea how terrible it feels to find out on New Year's Eve that one of your best friends has died, at only 18, and that on top of that she has absolutely no chance of being in heaven. I have to deal with my own guilt for not having helped them when I could. Now it is far, far too late. You simply cannot understand how terrible a feeling that is.

My point, however, is that no matter how nice a person you are, unless you give your life to Christ you are spittin' in the wind.

Thus, the unrepentant child molester will not be admitted to heaven. However, the repentant child molester. Giving up a life of sin is the most important facet of being a christian. If a christian fails to do so, then they are even worse than an atheist. Similarly, a good atheist will not make it to heaven, because all of us sin at some point. No one is perfect.

My point, however, is that no matter how nice a person you are, unless you give your life to Christ you are spittin' in the wind.

Then you're calling God an evil egomaniac, and calling yourself an idiot or a brown nose for worshipping him. Plain and simple. You believe Ghandi is RIGHTFULLY burning in Hell.

The bottom line then, is that Hell and eternal torment seem to be rediculously unjust for the simple crime of not believing in Jesus Christ. You like to say "not admitted to Heaven" because you dislike and wish to deny the idea that these people are in hell.

I find that I can no longer really argue, because your idea that human beings are inherently worthless is so far against all that I stand for and believe in that I cannot accept it, I cannot even open my mind to the idea. Down that path of thought, to me, lies only desolation and despair. If we are worthless, then there IS no point. That fundamental concept of human worth is what drives me, the only thing that makes anything seem worthwhile.

My dear, dear, misguided, idealistic lad. I'm sorry, but please turn on your TV and tell me how fundamentally good and innocent humans really are. If you are not a christian, then you must believe we are descended from nothing more than an ape. If you have ever tried to raise an ape, such as an orangutan, then you would know that the vast majority of such creatures have no concept of morality and no goal beyond providing for their basic needs. This inherent selfishness carries over to humans. We have it in us, according to your own beliefs, to look out for #1 first. That is why even the rich kids do drugs and steal. In this we are all the same. We have a basic instinct to do that which is morally wrong according to society, but according to the animal kingdom is a perfectly normal example of survival of the fittest.

Christians have their own reasons for believing that humans are, at core, sinful.

However, no matter which way you look at it, we are not nearly as moral a species as we like to think. Once again, move out of your nice, sheltered home and try looking at the real world. Hit the streets, watch the wealthy kids in New York go slumming in Brooklyn, and explain to me why I, who works on the beach during the summer, am continually approached by adults who are hoping I could sell them some Mary Jane, Coke, Shrooms, LSD, Acid, Opium, and any of numerous other drugs. Not to mention the time when a man asked me how much money it would take to get me and some of my boys to jump another guy. The basic lesson I have learned is that humans are selfish, and although they can overcome that selfishness in some cases, that urge is everpresent.

My dear, dear, misguided, idealistic lad. I'm sorry, but please turn on your TV and tell me how fundamentally good and innocent humans really are. If you are not a christian, then you must believe we are descended from nothing more than an ape. If you have ever tried to raise an ape, such as an orangutan, then you would know that the vast majority of such creatures have no concept of morality and no goal beyond providing for their basic needs. This inherent selfishness carries over to humans. We have it in us, according to your own beliefs, to look out for #1 first. That is why even the rich kids do drugs and steal. In this we are all the same. We have a basic instinct to do that which is morally wrong according to society, but according to the animal kingdom is a perfectly normal example of survival of the fittest.

Christians have their own reasons for believing that humans are, at core, sinful.

However, no matter which way you look at it, we are not nearly as moral a species as we like to think. Once again, move out of your nice, sheltered home and try looking at the real world. Hit the streets, watch the wealthy kids in New York go slumming in Brooklyn, and explain to me why I, who works on the beach during the summer, am continually approached by adults who are hoping I could sell them some Mary Jane, Coke, Shrooms, LSD, Acid, Opium, and any of numerous other drugs. Not to mention the time when a man asked me how much money it would take to get me and some of my boys to jump another guy. The basic lesson I have learned is that humans are selfish, and although they can overcome that selfishness in some cases, that urge is everpresent.

Was Ghandi selfish? You can assume he overcame it. So he still went to Hell? Is THAT your god's fairness?

First off: Being a nonbeliever does not make me an evolutionist. Evolution does have a good deal of credibility to me, but not all nonchristians believe in evolution.
and the rest of it:
People do bad things, sometimes they do horrible things. Often, they do selfish things when they could be helping others. There are those who work to destroy our world, and there are those who work to build and heal it. And then there are those who do not care, and seek only to make themselves feel good. Humans are just as capable of good as they are of evil, just as capable of creation as destruction. Those who create, who do good, who help others, are known as good people. The basic petty crimes you describe are nothing. People often do bad things. I do not deny this. I am not ignorant and naive for believing that humans exist for the purpose of doing good.

Apes have no sense of morality, of right and wrong, and thus we are more capable of living moral lives than apes.

The urge to be selfish, or even destructive, is ever present, but it is immaterial. For the worth lies in focusing on that which is constructive, that which heals rather than kills.

If the world is as evil as you describe it, what is the point of living in it?

Was Ghandi selfish? You can assume he overcame it. So he still went to Hell? Is THAT your god's fairness?

Did Ghandi sin? Yes. Did he repent of this sin before God and trust in Christ for forgiveness? No.

Did Ghandi sin? Yes. Did he repent of this sin before God and trust in Christ for forgiveness? No.

Funny how you failed to mention (and how you wish your god would fail to mention as well) all the good deeds that Ghandi did for MILLIONS of people.

YAY! Post 666 is mine!

Funny how you failed to mention (and how you wish your god would fail to mention as well) all the good deeds that Ghandi did for MILLIONS of people.

Ghandi did good deeds for MILLIONS of people. That's not enough. Jesus did more, plus he never did anything wrong.

Ghandi did good deeds for MILLIONS of people. That's not enough. Jesus did more, plus he never did anything wrong.

So now the bar to get into heaven is up all the way to Jesus?

Ghandi did good deeds for MILLIONS of people. That's not enough. Jesus did more, plus he never did anything wrong.

Which means Ghandi would go to Hell. That would be good rewarded with evil, which is unjust.

So now the bar to get into heaven is up all the way to Jesus?

Yep. You have to be as perfect as Jesus was if you want to work your way into Heaven.

Which means Ghandi would go to Hell. That would be good rewarded with evil, which is unjust.

Nope, that's evil rewarded with justice. Ghandi sinned. Was evil.

Nope, that's evil rewarded with justice. Ghandi sinned. Was evil.

Oh, yeah. Was born, started a peaceful resistance movement that freed a whole country, taught the values of peace and love to lots and lots of people. Horrible man, deserves to burn.

Nope, that's evil rewarded with justice. Ghandi sinned. Was evil.

Hold on... All that someone has to do technically would be to discover Jesus. Also, how do you know who's going to heaven or hell? God didn't tell me about the fact non-Christians go to hell. There would be a very small group in heaven if only a few, good Christians went to heaven.

Yep. You have to be as perfect as Jesus was if you want to work your way into Heaven.
Well, won't it be rather lonely up there then?
I've never heard anyone say you must be on a par with Jesus before, as Jesus was kind of... Well...
Perfect.
A bit tricky to match up with, ya know?

Well, won't it be rather lonely up there then?
I've never heard anyone say you must be on a par with Jesus before, as Jesus was kind of... Well...
Perfect.
A bit tricky to match up with, ya know?

In fact, it is impossible because we are all imperfect. :eek:

Then there is the whole thing about how you would be taking Matthew's testiment out of context of the others and the fact that it was writtent to the Jewish people who were alredy "good" because they followed all of Moses's laws & the 10 commandments.

YAY! Post 666 is mine!
Aha.
So, did "they" ever "come and get you"?
;)

yes, i realize that someone who has sinned cannot be perfect. i get that. to be perfect is to be without flaw, and sin would qualify as a flaw. no problem there.

however, you cannot turn that right around. it is quite possible to have flaws other than sin, so one could be imperfect without having sinned. you are choosing to define "perfect" as meaning EXCLUSIVELY "without sin," but that is not what the word "perfect" actually means. it means without flaws, and not all flaws are sins. for instance, a flaw in a diamond isn't a sin. having a hair with a split end isn't a sin (unless you live in LA). many things may disqualify something from perfection, and not all of those things are sin.

put it this way: to be "black" something must be without the color red...if something is red, it cannot be black. however, you cannot make the reciprocal assertion that if something is not black it must be red.
You usually post thought-provocatively.
Addendum, or at least another perspective ... i've heard more often than anything else, when put to the screws .... sin is only adequately defined as the willingness to refuse the will of "god". There's any number of adequate examples. Of course it lends argument that being born itself is against the will of god, as to qualify that bullsh*t about being born into sin BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN MAKE A CONSCIOUS AND JUDICIOUS CHOICE TO DO ANYTHING. And which god would that be, and in what "image" are the subordinate cast .... at least it gives some kind of power to the idea that we just get to die and beg for god to like us better while we're alive, although i don't know anyone who actually achieved enough in the living to prevent the final stroke from coming down on 'em .... could be they keep good secrets. Maybe that's the secret of the Illuminati ... ;) *ramble*

I would just like to point out that I never got a response on my previous series of posts about how God's supposed unconditional love and forgiveness and grace has a condition--at least to hear modern Christians tell it.

Granted, I haven't read every post since then as I've been busy. But I scanned the pages looking for a response (I'm histrionic and like to see my name) and didn't see one.

So I want an unswer:

How can something but unconditional when it has requirements?

Haven't you heard? When God sends you to burn eternally, it hurts him more than you!
Doesn't that make you feel better?
God loves everyone equally. He just loves some people more than others.

People try to make money off things like "God" by making funny rules up that eventually all result in joining some fancy club and/or doing certain things.

Whenever conditions are placed on God, it's most likely done by someone or some group to further some agenda. Belief, or lack thereof, in God or whatever is an extremely personal thing...something you can't trust others to interpret or dictate for/to you.

People try to make money off things like "God" by making funny rules up that eventually all result in joining some fancy club and/or doing certain things.

Whenever conditions are placed on God, it's most likely done by someone or some group to further some agenda. Belief, or lack thereof, in God or whatever is an extremely personal thing...something you can't trust others to interpret or dictate for/to you.
Hear, hear! *ring* *ring*

We've established that it's unjust not to save people with great deeds, regardless of creed. If he doesn't do that, he's already unjust.

Erm, no we havn't. I have estabished deeds need not come into the picture of salvation.

But what is the point of law if we are worthless?
What is the point of achievement if we are worthless?
What is the point of anything if our only apparent purpose is to accept Jesus's path into heaven?

Ah, the crux. No our purpose is not to "get into heaven" as you put it. Salvation is a major part of the Christian religion, but it is not the only part. The life we are supposed to lead, or do our best to lead (as outlined in the Bible) is the puropse. We are supposed to do our best to do that. That is our "puropose". Chrisitianity is not just about getting into heaven.

How much do you know about ANY other religions?

Ok, lets clear something up here. Are you discussing the value of the Christian salvation ideas in relation to YOUR perspective or other religions. Because you cant do both and you keep jumping between the two to try and win points.

Haven't you heard? When God sends you to burn eternally, it hurts him more than you!
Doesn't that make you feel better?
God loves everyone equally. He just loves some people more than others.

*sighs* why is it that people believe that being cynical will help.

And where the hell did you hear that?

Ah, the crux. No our purpose is not to "get into heaven" as you put it. Salvation is a major part of the Christian religion, but it is not the only part. The life we are supposed to lead, or do our best to lead (as outlined in the Bible) is the puropse. We are supposed to do our best to do that. That is our "puropose". Chrisitianity is not just about getting into heaven.

Ah, that sounds a bit too... aspirational to me. Christianity, for me at least, has always been about experiencing a loving relationship with God, and knowing his love for us. Living a good life in and of itself is not Christianity, that's called being moral.

Erm, no we havn't. I have estabished deeds need not come into the picture of salvation.
yes, you have established that deeds do not need to be included into salvation, but you have not established how excluding them can be consistent with justice. to make our deeds irrelevant to our salvation essentially reduces the value of our human life to zero; it doesn't matter how great or how wicked we are in life, all we have to do is swallow a magic pill and we've got a free pass to paradise.

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.
Jesus was VERY clear: "NO MAN cometh unto the Father but through me." Those who have TRULY accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour are not going to be out there committing acts such as child-molestation. A person truly motivated by pure motives will put God before all else. Actions of this type have cost me and several I know friends that chose not to tollerate our opinions even when we were not being the stereotypical "bible thumpers." As others have said God is not sending anyone to hell. It is your choice to either accept the forgiveness for all of your sins that was provided by the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. If you end up in hell it is simply because you chose to turn your back on "cure" for your sins. If you go into a quarentined area and then chose to refuse the antidote you can not say that it was the doctor's fault you are sick because you chose to follow a course of action that lead you to this fate.
yes, you have established that deeds do not need to be included into salvation, but you have not established how excluding them can be consistent with justice. to make our deeds irrelevant to our salvation essentially reduces the value of our human life to zero; it doesn't matter how great or how wicked we are in life, all we have to do is swallow a magic pill and we've got a free pass to paradise.
Spoken like a true athiest. There is no magic pill. Like changing you cholesterol, yes there are pills to help but you must constantly take them, the only true of changing your cholesterol is by making a change to your habits. When you accept Christ it must be a whole heart thing not just spoken. Having Christ as a major and true part of yourself leads to a change in who you are and how you behave. NO free pass!

Ghandi did good deeds for MILLIONS of people. That's not enough. Jesus did more, plus he never did anything wrong.
He was born ... (origional sin) (and he was man therefore he was born with origional sin .. mothers side)

If I were god I'd sue the people that wrote my biography. He didn't come out very well in it.

He was born ... (origional sin) (and he was man therefore he was born with ORIGINAL sin .. mothers side)
He may have been born into sin but he himself was without sin; further proof that the sins of the father do not get passed to the son, as the saying goes. being without sin hell had no dominion over him but he went there of his own free will bearing all sins committed by humanity thereby paying the price for all of us. All we must do is accept him paying our bill for us. Pretty onsided equation but there are still many of you that chose not to accept and that is your right.

was watching CSI, thought this quote would be relevant.
Q: What do you do when you see the Buddha walking down the road?
A: Shoot him, for Buddha is within all of us, and this man is clearly a False Buddha.

Ok, ok. I think that it is has no use at all to try to show to christians that they DO NOT deserve heaven more than good atheists or people like Ghandi, because just saying: "I repent, dude." does NOT make them persons more deservable that good atheists or people like Ghandi.

So, I will try someting else.
Let's guess that you christians are right, and that your God (from which I believe that he's a more horrible and cruel monster than any Old One H.P. Lovecraft could ever have imagined) is a just and loving being. (which to me still makes as much sense as a pink sperm whale who's flying through the air while riding a bicycle and singing the Marselaisse but let's just intend for a moment that it's true.)
What about you? Do you can feel happiness while knowing that millions of people who did NOTHING bad are burning in hell only and only for their lack of belief? Do you can find peace in heaven while knowing that muslim and other non-christian children are tortured beyond human imagination only and only because they didn't want to accept a God as their saviour from which they actually never heard anything of?
Even if (for some miraculous reasons) this all is just in His eyes, can you accept that only because He says so? Is an order from above the only thing there's need of to satisfy your hearts? Have you no thoughts and feelings of your own? What are you, robots?
Can you really be THAT non-caring?
And DON'T give me that "well, God says that..." AGAIN. I'm not asking what this being, which for me becomes more and more the incarnation of cruelty when I'm talking to people like you, is thinking. I'm asking what YOU are thinking.

He may have been born into sin but he himself was without sin; further proof that the sins of the father do not get passed to the son, as the saying goes. being without sin hell had no dominion over him but he went there of his own free will bearing all sins committed by humanity thereby paying the price for all of us. All we must do is accept him paying our bill for us. Pretty onsided equation but there are still many of you that chose not to accept and that is your right.
Which completely invalidates the whole original sin theory (sin being passed down from Adam) because if sin’s of the father are not passed down how is original sin perpetuated? (unless you don’t believe in it … I think it is a catholic thing if I remember correctly)

Ok, ok. I think that it is has no use at all to try to show to christians that they DO NOT deserve heaven more than good atheists or people like Ghandi, because just saying: "I repent, dude." does NOT make them persons more deservable that good atheists or people like Ghandi.

So, I will try someting else.
Let's guess that you christians are right, and that your God (from which I believe that he's a more horrible and cruel monster than any Old One H.P. Lovecraft could ever have imagined) is a just and loving being. (which to me still makes as much sense as a pink sperm whale who's flying through the air while riding a bicycle and singing the Marselaisse but let's just intend for a moment that it's true.)
What about you? Do you can feel happiness while knowing that millions of people who did NOTHING bad are burning in hell only and only for their lack of belief? Do you can find peace in heaven while knowing that muslim and other non-christian children are tortured beyond human imagination only and only because they didn't want to accept a God as their saviour from which they actually never heard anything of?
Even if (for some miraculous reasons) this all is just in His eyes, can you accept that only because He says so? Is an order from above the only thing there's need of to satisfy your hearts? Have you no thoughts and feelings of your own? What are you, robots?
Can you really be THAT non-caring?
And DON'T give me that "well, God says that..." AGAIN. I'm not asking what this being, which for me becomes more and more the incarnation of cruelty when I'm talking to people like you, is thinking. I'm asking what YOU are thinking.

Schoeningia, if you are the average arguer in Germany, it's no surprise that Hegel, Kant and others belong to Deutschland... You're great at stealing my points. So, Cannen, answer her, I don't really need to add to her point yet.

Ok, ok. I think that it is has no use at all to try to show to christians that they DO NOT deserve heaven more than good atheists or people like Ghandi, because just saying: "I repent, dude." does NOT make them persons more deservable that good atheists or people like Ghandi.

So, I will try someting else.
Let's guess that you christians are right, and that your God (from which I believe that he's a more horrible and cruel monster than any Old One H.P. Lovecraft could ever have imagined) is a just and loving being. (which to me still makes as much sense as a pink sperm whale who's flying through the air while riding a bicycle and singing the Marselaisse but let's just intend for a moment that it's true.)
What about you? Do you can feel happiness while knowing that millions of people who did NOTHING bad are burning in hell only and only for their lack of belief? Do you can find peace in heaven while knowing that muslim and other non-christian children are tortured beyond human imagination only and only because they didn't want to accept a God as their saviour from which they actually never heard anything of?
Even if (for some miraculous reasons) this all is just in His eyes, can you accept that only because He says so? Is an order from above the only thing there's need of to satisfy your hearts? Have you no thoughts and feelings of your own? What are you, robots?
Can you really be THAT non-caring?
And DON'T give me that "well, God says that..." AGAIN. I'm not asking what this being, which for me becomes more and more the incarnation of cruelty when I'm talking to people like you, is thinking. I'm asking what YOU are thinking.
I don't know if I can answer this in a way that you'll accept, and I haven't read this whole thread, but here goes . . .

You use the phrases "good atheists" and "people who did NOTHING bad". Christianity does not recognise these phrases as descriptions of actual, existing groups of people.
The Bible divides up humanity into three groups:
1. Bad people;
2. Bad people who have asked for and received God's forgiveness;
3. Jesus Christ, the only truly good human being ever.
Only God knows which of the first two groups any particular individual falls into, but only God Himself, as Jesus, has ever been truly good of Himself.

On your point about those in hell for lack of belief, the Bible hints that there will be people in God's Kingdom who never specifically knew Him as Jesus Christ. N.B., it doesn't say this explicitly, but passages such as Romans 2:14-16 and Luke 10:11-14 suggest that God judges people based on the knowledge available to them, and that His judgement is always just. Therefore, I believe that, for instance, no-one who dies in infancy will go to hell.

The defining characteristic of "heaven" is that God rules. If you want to be with God forever, on His terms, then you will be. If you don't want to be with God, or you want "heaven" on your terms, then you're in for a nasty surprise.

On your point about those in hell for lack of belief, the Bible hints that there will be people in God's Kingdom who never specifically knew Him as Jesus Christ. N.B., it doesn't say this explicitly, but passages such as Romans 2:14-16 and Luke 10:11-14 suggest that God judges people based on the knowledge available to them, and that His judgement is always just. Therefore, I believe that, for instance, no-one who dies in infancy will go to hell.

So, an atheist, to whom, to the best of his knowledge, there is no god, is forgiven.

How sad that some christians think that all people are inherently bad. Perhaps they judge everyone to be like themselves.

How sad that some christians think that all people are inherently bad. Perhaps they judge everyone to be like themselves.
I know what a depressing way to live life and they come and have the gall to ask us how we can possibly be happy without a belief it some dude in the sky

So, an atheist, to whom, to the best of his knowledge, there is no god, is forgiven.
Interesting one. The Bible does contain the quote "There is no God", but it's immediately preceded by "The fool has said in his heart" (see Psalm 14, and "fool" implies moral deficiency more than intellectual deficiency).

I think the biblical perspective is that anyone who has heard the good news about Jesus Christ and not responded with belief has rejected God's will for their life.

In case you've never heard the gospel (Old English for "good news") before, here's the gist. God, who made everything (including you), knows everything (including everything about you), and can do everything that can be done, wants you. He wants a personal relationship with you, to give you direction and purpose for your life, to change you into the person He always intended you to be, to use you to help others and make this world a better place to live. He can forgive everything you've done, said, and thought that was wrong, because He himself took the penalty, as Jesus Christ, when He died on a cross. He offers you forgiveness, and an entirely new life that will start now and continue after the death of your physical body and into forever, in a world made completely right.

Everyone who has just read that has now been told the bare basics of Christianity. How you respond is, depending on which flavour of Christianity you listen to, up to you, or up to God, or a mix of both.

How sad that some christians think that all people are inherently bad. Perhaps they judge everyone to be like themselves.
Do you believe that people are inherently good, or that there is no inherent good or bad, or something else?

This is not meant in a threatening way, I'm genuinely curious.
:)

Interesting one. The Bible does contain the quote "There is no God", but it's immediately preceded by "The fool has said in his heart" (see Psalm 14, and "fool" implies moral deficiency more than intellectual deficiency).

I think the biblical perspective is that anyone who has heard the good news about Jesus Christ and not responded with belief has rejected God's will for their life.

In case you've never heard the gospel (Old English for "good news") before, here's the gist. God, who made everything (including you), knows everything (including everything about you), and can do everything that can be done, wants you. He wants a personal relationship with you, to give you direction and purpose for your life, to change you into the person He always intended you to be, to use you to help others and make this world a better place to live. He can forgive everything you've done, said, and thought that was wrong, because He himself took the penalty, as Jesus Christ, when He died on a cross. He offers you forgiveness, and an entirely new life that will start now and continue after the death of your physical body and into forever, in a world made completely right.

Everyone who has just read that has now been told the bare basics of Christianity. How you respond is, depending on which flavour of Christianity you listen to, up to you, or up to God, or a mix of both.

Well, I listen to the flavour that says God will reward good with good, regardless of people believing his existance.

Well, I listen to the flavour that says God will reward good with good, regardless of people believing his existance.
I would ask that flavour what their explanation is of verses from the Bible like:

Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.")

or:

John 3:18 ("He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in name of the only begotten Son of God.")

Well, I listen to the flavour that says God will reward good with good, regardless of people believing his existance.
then you are as guilty of arbitrary belief as the people you are arguing against. there is no reason to believe that God would conform to your warm-and-fuzzy vision. indeed, if somebody actually follows the Bible as a guide to God and God's will, they could never accept your interpretation. if people are going to use the Bible at all, i would prefer that they be consistent about it and not simply pick and choose the bits they like; if you're only going to believe the parts of a religion that you already have decided are okay, then you should have the guts to cut out the middle man and hold your convictions without needing to cite religious texts.

I would ask that flavour what their explanation is of verses from the Bible like:

Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.")

or:

John 3:18 ("He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in name of the only begotten Son of God.")
Can have a lot of the same for a lot of “flavors”
Everyone has an impetration of different verses and put emphasis on some over others. (along with completely ignoring other parts of the bible)

I would ask that flavour what their explanation is of verses from the Bible like:

Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.")

or:

John 3:18 ("He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in name of the only begotten Son of God.")

I would ask ANY OTHER flavors what would the explanation be to verses that tell about how good, just and merciful god is.

then you are as guilty of arbitrary belief as the people you are arguing against. there is no reason to believe that God would conform to your warm-and-fuzzy vision. indeed, if somebody actually follows the Bible as a guide to God and God's will, they could never accept your interpretation. if people are going to use the Bible at all, i would prefer that they be consistent about it and not simply pick and choose the bits they like; if you're only going to believe the parts of a religion that you already have decided are okay, then you should have the guts to cut out the middle man and hold your convictions without needing to cite religious texts.
yeah that bugs me to but as long as there is any ambiguity (specially with all the contradictions that the bible has) it is all arbitrary interpretation

then you are as guilty of arbitrary belief as the people you are arguing against. there is no reason to believe that God would conform to your warm-and-fuzzy vision. indeed, if somebody actually follows the Bible as a guide to God and God's will, they could never accept your interpretation. if people are going to use the Bible at all, i would prefer that they be consistent about it and not simply pick and choose the bits they like; if you're only going to believe the parts of a religion that you already have decided are okay, then you should have the guts to cut out the middle man and hold your convictions without needing to cite religious texts.

See, I'm questioning the coherence of a good, fair god that acts in such an evil and unfair manner.

See, I'm questioning the coherence of a good, fair god that acts in such an evil and unfair manner.
who are you to say that it is evil to send good people to Hell? how can you possibly know whether human rules of logic and morality would apply to a God?

yeah that bugs me to but as long as there is any ambiguity (specially with all the contradictions that the bible has) it is all arbitrary interpretation
yeah, and that's why i think it is fundamentally stupid to base your life on the Bible, unless you are prepared to learn the ancient languages necessary to read original translations of those text. at least by comparing and analyzing different translations with the original you might gain some insight into what the Bible actually said when it was written...but most people who base their whole lives and all their morality on the Bible will never even READ THE REAL BIBLE! i can't even imagine why anybody would be that idiotic.

See, the other beings that send dissenters to horrible places or allow them to go there are beings like Hitler, Mussolini...

yeah, and that's why i think it is fundamentally stupid to base your life on the Bible, unless you are prepared to learn the ancient languages necessary to read original translations of those text. at least by comparing and analyzing different translations with the original you might gain some insight into what the Bible actually said when it was written...but most people who base their whole lives and all their morality on the Bible will never even READ THE REAL BIBLE! i can't even imagine why anybody would be that idiotic.
And it happens all the time

In fact besides me im not sure anyone in my old parish besides the priest has ever actually read the bible in English much less anything else (even in my catholic grade school) should have saw the friend of mines face (she is a religion teacher) the first time I showed her song of Solomon (not a heavily covered part of the bible)

Schoeningia, if you are the average arguer in Germany, it's no surprise that Hegel, Kant and others belong to Deutschland... You're great at stealing my points. So, Cannen, answer her, I don't really need to add to her point yet.
Thank you, but actually I’m male.^^

I don't know if I can answer this in a way that you'll accept, and I haven't read this whole thread, but here goes . . .

You use the phrases "good atheists" and "people who did NOTHING bad". Christianity does not recognise these phrases as descriptions of actual, existing groups of people.
The Bible divides up humanity into three groups:
1. Bad people;
2. Bad people who have asked for and received God's forgiveness;
3. Jesus Christ, the only truly good human being ever.
Only God knows which of the first two groups any particular individual falls into, but only God Himself, as Jesus, has ever been truly good of Himself.
For Christ’s sake, you are doing it again! I don’t care what the bible or God or J.C. and his gang are saying!
I just want to know if you, as a christian, can live happy in heaven while knowing that in the same time you enjoy heaven there are millions of people suffering inhuman torments in hell.

On your point about those in hell for lack of belief, the Bible hints that there will be people in God's Kingdom who never specifically knew Him as Jesus Christ. N.B., it doesn't say this explicitly, but passages such as Romans 2:14-16 and Luke 10:11-14 suggest that God judges people based on the knowledge available to them, and that His judgement is always just. Therefore, I believe that, for instance, no-one who dies in infancy will go to hell.

The defining characteristic of "heaven" is that God rules. If you want to be with God forever, on His terms, then you will be. If you don't want to be with God, or you want "heaven" on your terms, then you're in for a nasty surprise.
Ok, no infants. They are going to heaven anyway. Got that. (Notice to myself: Have to kill my children while they are still infants and before they are old enough to doubt God’s existence. That’s the only way I can think of saving my children from eternal torment.)

In case you've never heard the gospel (Old English for "good news") before, here's the gist. God, who made everything (including you), knows everything (including everything about you), and can do everything that can be done, wants you. He wants a personal relationship with you, to give you direction and purpose for your life, to change you into the person He always intended you to be, to use you to help others and make this world a better place to live. He can forgive everything you've done, said, and thought that was wrong, because He himself took the penalty, as Jesus Christ, when He died on a cross. He offers you forgiveness, and an entirely new life that will start now and continue after the death of your physical body and into forever, in a world made completely right.
NOTHING would be right if I would know that there are people suffering eternal torture in hell. Got that? NOTHING.
One of my best friends is a lesbian, which means that she’s going to burn in hell for sure. (For being in love with her girl-friend, what a terrible and evil sin, for God’s sake!)
I would prefer to spit on your God and go to hell forever, instead of watching how she’s banned to hell only for loving someone else.

And when I just think about that I used to look down on German protestants (these are the guys who believe that there is no hell and that everybody is going to heaven, no matter if he’s a believer or not). And you know why? Because all the kindness, mercy and forgiveness they talk about when they are describing their god seemed too good-hearted, naïve and too harmless to me to be true. To call God, as you are describing him, good-hearted and harmless…

who are you to say that it is evil to send good people to Hell? how can you possibly know whether human rules of logic and morality would apply to a God?
A-ha.
If that’s the case than tell me HOW can christians possibly know whether human rules of mercy and love would apply to God.

Do you believe that people are inherently good, or that there is no inherent good or bad, or something else?

This is not meant in a threatening way, I'm genuinely curious.
:)

I think most people try to be good. I think that that is what makes most of them generally good. I do believe that there is a wrong and a right. People are generally good, but I don't think anyone is all good. We all have urges and faults we'd rather people not be aware of. Some people are genuinely bad. I don't think they are the majority, but sometimes it seems there are a lot of them.

For Christ’s sake, you are doing it again! I don’t care what the bible or God or J.C. and his gang are saying!
I just want to know if you, as a christian, can live happy in heaven while knowing that in the same time you enjoy heaven there are millions of people suffering inhuman torments in hell.

NOTHING would be right if I would know that there are people suffering eternal torture in hell. Got that? NOTHING.
One of my best friends is a lesbian, which means that she’s going to burn in hell for sure. (For being in love with her girl-friend, what a terrible and evil sin, for God’s sake!)
I would prefer to spit on your God and go to hell forever, instead of watching how she’s banned to hell only for loving someone else.


The thing is, I do care deeply what the Bible, God and J.C. are saying, and I'm in His gang. I trust that God is just, and that no-one will be in hell who does not deserve it. I know that seems really harsh and uncaring, but I'm saying that God is a better judge of who deserves it than I could ever be. It's not my place to judge God.

What is your alternative solution? What is God supposed to do with those who reject His way for their lives? They can't be with Him, they've chosen not to be. The alternative is to be apart from Him, and that's hell.

I don't know what's going to happen to your friend, and neither do you, because neither of us knows the future. God will decide based on His rules, because He makes the rules.

And if you would rather spit on my God and go to hell forever, rather than accept His authority over you, then I'm sad to say that is exactly what will happen.

I think most people try to be good. I think that that is what makes most of them generally good. I do believe that there is a wrong and a right. People are generally good, but I don't think anyone is all good. We all have urges and faults we'd rather people not be aware of. Some people are genuinely bad. I don't think they are the majority, but sometimes it seems there are a lot of them.
This may upset you, but I have a different perspective to you on the nature of humanity. I believe that humans, being designed in God's image, had the potential to remain always good, but that since the Fall, we've been corrupted, and that we naturally tend towards selfishness. Good and evil are therefore struggling inside us, and good does come out naturally (parental love is one example that springs to mind), but I believe that people are generally selfish.
I didn't grow up with this belief, I didn't develop it by myself, I've learnt it from the Bible. I believe it is an entirely adequate explanation of the history of human behaviour

This may upset you, but I have a different perspective to you on the nature of humanity. I believe that humans, being designed in God's image, had the potential to remain always good, but that since the Fall, we've been corrupted, and that we naturally tend towards selfishness. Good and evil are therefore struggling inside us, and good does come out naturally (parental love is one example that springs to mind), but I believe that people are generally selfish.
I didn't grow up with this belief, I didn't develop it by myself, I've learnt it from the Bible. I believe it is an entirely adequate explanation of the history of human behaviour
Where as I can see it explained in the light of certain behaviors having certain benefits for personal survival therefore perpetuating people who have the correct chemistry to act those ways through evolution

(read evolution by Stephan Baxter) in fact he seems to have a great explanation on how religion is an evolutionary advantage (being able to blindly follow an idea with utmost zeal would seem to have an advantage on motivating large groups of people to work together)

Probably not absolutely correct but an interesting idea

Oh, yeah. Was born, started a peaceful resistance movement that freed a whole country, taught the values of peace and love to lots and lots of people. Horrible man, deserves to burn.

Did he live an absolutely perfect life? No. The standard is Christ, and Ghandi did not meet it through his actions. No one CAN because we are sinful. We have only one other option: faith in Christ.

Hold on... All that someone has to do technically would be to discover Jesus. Also, how do you know who's going to heaven or hell? God didn't tell me about the fact non-Christians go to hell. There would be a very small group in heaven if only a few, good Christians went to heaven.

I've always argued that you need to have faith in Jesus to gain salvation. As for Ghandi, you're right that I have no idea about if he personally is in Heaven or Hell, but for the purposes of this argument, Ghandi is a man with great deeds who rejected Christianity. His deeds could not save him in this hypothetical situation.


Well, won't it be rather lonely up there then?
I've never heard anyone say you must be on a par with Jesus before, as Jesus was kind of... Well...
Perfect.
A bit tricky to match up with, ya know?
Look at my quote again. "You have to be as perfect as Jesus was if you want to work your way into Heaven."

It would be rather lonely if this was the only option God gave us. Fortunately, he also gave us His son Jesus.

He was born ... (origional sin) (and he was man therefore he was born with origional sin .. mothers side)

We covered this a few posts ago. Virgin birth, Jesus was God. He didn't have original sin. He was perfect. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to do the things he did.

We covered this a few posts ago. Virgin birth, Jesus was God. He didn't have original sin. He was perfect. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to do the things he did.
Yes we did but his mother was human ... transfering origional sin you LIKE to think that just because his fauther was god that that negates his mothers influance
but as far as I can see there is no biblical backing for that position (just the fact that christians do not like to admit that their savior could therefore by their own rules be a sinner)

Where as I can see it explained in the light of certain behaviors having certain benefits for personal survival therefore perpetuating people who have the correct chemistry to act those ways through evolution

(read evolution by Stephan Baxter) in fact he seems to have a great explanation on how religion is an evolutionary advantage (being able to blindly follow an idea with utmost zeal would seem to have an advantage on motivating large groups of people to work together)

Probably not absolutely correct but an interesting idea
And because we're working off such different worldviews, it's difficult for each of us to seriously consider the ideas of the other, since they conflict with our whole way of perceiving and understanding existence.
I've only been a Christian for less than five years, and I really believe it was God that persuaded me to believe that the Bible is true. I doubt any force but God could really have done it. I can sort of remember how I used to think, but I can't really think that way, and I don't want to.

And because we're working off such different worldviews, it's difficult for each of us to seriously consider the ideas of the other, since they conflict with our whole way of perceiving and understanding existence.
I've only been a Christian for less than five years, and I really believe it was God that persuaded me to believe that the Bible is true. I doubt any force but God could really have done it. I can sort of remember how I used to think, but I can't really think that way, and I don't want to.
I agree hard to understand
I don’t get the jump from “something must have created … started … planed things” which is understandable
Down to a specific denomination which seems to be filled with things that could not possibly be divinely derived

You would not need a complex set of guidelines to judge what to do if salvation was based on works. All you would need would be a list of good and bad things. Stealing is bad, killing people is bad, giving to the poor is good, helping people out is good, that sort of thing, you know, which is covered to some extent in... THE BIBLE!


Yes but you would need a complex set up to somehow quantify/qualify the releive value of good deeds if a system of salvation by works was based on anything other than no sin


Were I God I would accept into heaven all those who intended to help their fellow man as much as themselves, send all those who intended to help themselves more than their fellow man to be reincarnated and try again, and send all those who sought to hurt their fellow man for the betterment of themselves to hell for a period of time, and then reincarnate them to try again. Ghandi would be in heaven, and the Crusaders who raped and murdered would be in hell.

And how would you quantify say two very good people but one was only a little under the mark. And what would be your qualification for various complicated value systems. The reletive quality/quantiy of good deeds is far to complicated for someone to make a workable judgement system on. You are generalising rediclously here when you are dealing with specific concepts. The problem with any kind of works based system of salvation is that you would have to have such an intricate system of judgements that no human would be able to understand it, or at least only a select few. Hence you would condem all those failing to understand it.


What you are saying is that all humans are inherently evil, and that only by accepting God can anyone escape hell. A God who would punish a person with eternal hellfire for not accepting him is EVIL. I would not worship such a God. whether or not he existed. A God who condemned Ghandi for not seeing that the Bible was the truth, for making a mistake, an error, is EVIL. A god who would look upon me, say "That man does not follow me, rather he seeks to find his own way through life, live by his own moral code rather than accept the code of others. I will CAST him into HELL for his HERESY!" is EVIL! I would never lower myself to worshipping that which is evil.


I dealt with that. I appologise if I was unclear but you are not sent to hell just because you do not believe. If you do not believe your sin is not removed. If your sin is not removed then you are going to hell. Not believing in itself is not a sin, but if you do not believe, your sin remains with you and you will be in hell.


Hell exists because God made it, and whether he casts nonbelievers into Hell, they are there because of him. If a man is about to die and all you have to do to stop him is will for him to live, and you know this, it is YOUR FAULT if he dies, as much as if you had killed him. I am not demanding that Ghandi, or hell, even I am allowed into heaven despite not believing in God, but I am saying it is unjust, wrong, EVIL that I, or Ghandi, or any nonchristian should burn forever. Were we given a second chance to see something we did not previously see, were we left to wander, were we extinguised, it would not be so unjust, it might even be acceptable.

I hold your God to my own standards and find him wanting.

No, they are there because of their own sin and their refusal to do anything about it. Sin alone is not what sends you to hell. It is your reaction to sin. If you react in a postive way to sin (IE its ok to sin, its not rearly wrong etc) then your sin remains. If you react negatively to sin (Look what I have done, I need to get rid of this/stop) then you will be saved. God did not create hell for man to go to, but for the devil to go to. That is a common misconception that people have. It is also a common misconception that God "Sends" you to hell. He is trying to pull you out, your the one who chooses whether or not to go with him or not. And as to your second chance arguement, God has given you a lifetime of chances. Asking for another one now that you know is a little unfair.

Yes we did but his mother was human ... transfering origional sin you LIKE to think that just because his fauther was god that that negates his mothers influance
but as far as I can see there is no biblical backing for that position (just the fact that christians do not like to admit that their savior could therefore by their own rules be a sinner)

I've never argued that Original Sin is passed down from person to person the same way hair color or eye color or nose size is. It's a spiritual condition- why would it be manifested physically through genetics? It's a natural condition, one that Jesus was not in because he was God, which he showed in the Virgin birth.

Ok, ok. I think that it is has no use at all to try to show to christians that they DO NOT deserve heaven more than good atheists or people like Ghandi, because just saying: "I repent, dude." does NOT make them persons more deservable that good atheists or people like Ghandi.


You are talking about human standards. Salvation is nothing to do with human standards. Also repenting must be sincere. Contary to popular belief you dont just say it and it become true.


So, I will try someting else.
Let's guess that you christians are right, and that your God (from which I believe that he's a more horrible and cruel monster than any Old One H.P. Lovecraft could ever have imagined) is a just and loving being. (which to me still makes as much sense as a pink sperm whale who's flying through the air while riding a bicycle and singing the Marselaisse but let's just intend for a moment that it's true.)
What about you? Do you can feel happiness while knowing that millions of people who did NOTHING bad are burning in hell only and only for their lack of belief? Do you can find peace in heaven while knowing that muslim and other non-christian children are tortured beyond human imagination only and only because they didn't want to accept a God as their saviour from which they actually never heard anything of?
Even if (for some miraculous reasons) this all is just in His eyes, can you accept that only because He says so? Is an order from above the only thing there's need of to satisfy your hearts? Have you no thoughts and feelings of your own? What are you, robots?
Can you really be THAT non-caring?
And DON'T give me that "well, God says that..." AGAIN. I'm not asking what this being, which for me becomes more and more the incarnation of cruelty when I'm talking to people like you, is thinking. I'm asking what YOU are thinking.

Why do you think Christians evanglisise. It's not for their own benefit! Christians evangilse because contary to popular opinion they CARE what happens to people. Christians do not want to see load's of people in the LOBS at the end (Lakes of burning sulpher), they want as many people as possible to be saved.

I would just like to point out that I never got a response on my previous series of posts about how God's supposed unconditional love and forgiveness and grace has a condition--at least to hear modern Christians tell it.

Granted, I haven't read every post since then as I've been busy. But I scanned the pages looking for a response (I'm histrionic and like to see my name) and didn't see one.

So I want an unswer:

How can something but unconditional when it has requirements?

Your mistake. God's love is unconditional. Salvation is not. God's love for all is demonstrated by the fact that Jesus died for ALL. Not Jews, not Greeks, not Romans, not Israllies, not Nazerites, not people who would become Christians but EVERYONE! Salvation is simpely the acceptence of that love. God's love is for all. Its up to you to accept it.

I've never argued that Original Sin is passed down from person to person the same way hair color or eye color or nose size is. It's a spiritual condition- why would it be manifested physically through genetics? It's a natural condition, one that Jesus was not in because he was God, which he showed in the Virgin birth.
Then you don’t believe in things like apostles creed the whole "became man" part

If original sin is a human condition he was either not man or a sinner (I know there is a vague half god half man but again no real biblical reason to believe that … but not going to get into issues with the trinity and the bible)

Well, I listen to the flavour that says God will reward good with good, regardless of people believing his existance.

Where do you get this idea from? Seriously, what logical reasoning do you have that good is rewarded with good. There is no biblical logic for good works equalling heaven, quite the oppisite.

Where do you get this idea from? Seriously, what logical reasoning do you have that good is rewarded with good. There is no biblical logic for good works equalling heaven, quite the oppisite.
There is no biblical logic for a lot of things people have believed through the years what’s the difference from Christians who still pick and choose which parts are more important

Then you don’t believe in things like apostles creed the whole "became man" part

If original sin is a human condition he was either not man or a sinner (I know there is a vague half god half man but again no real biblical reason to believe that … but not going to get into issues with the trinity and the bible)

I believe the Apostles' Creed. Jesus was true God. Evidence: Virgin Birth. Jesus was true Man. Evidence: born of Mary. Why wasn't Jesus affected by Original Sin? He was true God. Why was Jesus able to redeem humanity? He was true Man.

I agree hard to understand
I don’t get the jump from “something must have created … started … planed things” which is understandable
Down to a specific denomination which seems to be filled with things that could not possibly be divinely derived
We (that is, Christians) really believe that God turned up in human form, as Jesus Christ, to make things clearer to us, among other things, and that, before that, He had a specific and direct relationship with a group of humans, the Israelites, and that, since the ascension of Jesus, He's had personal contact with everyone who puts their trust in Jesus, by coming to live inside those who believe, to change them from the inside.
The "jump" you are failing to get is performed by God Himself. I probably don't agree with some of the things that you say "could not possibly be divinely derived", but I probably do agree with some of them as well, and it's not really my job to persuade you to agree with me on ethics or social practice if you don't agree with me on the really big, metaphysical, nature-of-all-existence issues. I can't really persuade you of the truth of Christian metaphysics either; I think that's God's job.

I believe the Apostles' Creed. Jesus was true God. Evidence: Virgin Birth. Jesus was true Man. Evidence: born of Mary. Why wasn't Jesus affected by Original Sin? He was true God. Why was Jesus able to redeem humanity? He was true Man.
But if all men have sin …
Otherwise he is the rule breaker
He was a man without sin
So obviously there can be men without sin

(Besides can you provide any biblical evidence of this? Its been 6 months since I have read it and don’t have access to one at work here)

Then you don’t believe in things like apostles creed the whole "became man" part

If original sin is a human condition he was either not man or a sinner (I know there is a vague half god half man but again no real biblical reason to believe that … but not going to get into issues with the trinity and the bible)

The division between God and man in Jesus is complex. Suffice to say we know the following things about his human nature

- He was corporeal
- He was male
- He was physically human (in terms of anatomy, we would not have found anything wired had we examined him)
- He experianced all the temptations of man (vilonet, sexual, glutinous, drunkness, all these things he was tempted to do in the way all humans are
- Born of a women

and here are his Godly atribiutes

- Supernatural abilities (healing, controlling weather, altering mollecular structure etc)
- No sin (I don't know how exactly original sin works but he didnt have it)
- Not born of man (No biological human father)

We (that is, Christians) really believe that God turned up in human form, as Jesus Christ, to make things clearer to us, among other things, and that, before that, He had a specific and direct relationship with a group of humans, the Israelites, and that, since the ascension of Jesus, He's had personal contact with everyone who puts their trust in Jesus, by coming to live inside those who believe, to change them from the inside.
The "jump" you are failing to get is performed by God Himself. I probably don't agree with some of the things that you say "could not possibly be divinely derived", but I probably do agree with some of them as well, and it's not really my job to persuade you to agree with me on ethics or social practice if you don't agree with me on the really big, metaphysical, nature-of-all-existence issues. I can't really persuade you of the truth of Christian metaphysics either; I think that's God's job.
Unless you believe 100 percent of whatever denomination’s dogma and rules not to mention the rules perpetrated in your denominations history, then you believe there are things (maybe not currently but have been things) that were not divinely inspired (I am talking about the organization not the belief)

There is no biblical logic for a lot of things people have believed through the years what’s the difference from Christians who still pick and choose which parts are more important

What I was refering to was the idea of salvation by works. The idea that if you do enough good stuff then God will let you into heaven. That is flatly contridicted in the Bible several times. And even if it wasn't, the Bible gives no kind of quota. No system of saying if you do X many Y value level good deeds you will get in.

all i can say is wtf

Your mistake. God's love is unconditional. Salvation is not. God's love for all is demonstrated by the fact that Jesus died for ALL. Not Jews, not Greeks, not Romans, not Israllies, not Nazerites, not people who would become Christians but EVERYONE! Salvation is simpely the acceptence of that love. God's love is for all. Its up to you to accept it.

So, if I don't accept it, God doesn't save me ergo his love isn't unconditional. This really isn't a difficult concept.

So, in a kind of save point:

Everyone agrees that:
When compared to mans standards, God is, at least, unjust.
NonChristian - ghandi/hitler argument
Christian - faith not deed argument
(is there some agreement?)

Things also going are that
Christian -Jesus was born without sin due to God father
NonChristian - Jesus still had sin due to human mother
(although i think thats up to the church if he did or didnt)

Quote and fix if i have major understanding problems.

What I was refering to was the idea of salvation by works. The idea that if you do enough good stuff then God will let you into heaven. That is flatly contridicted in the Bible several times. And even if it wasn't, the Bible gives no kind of quota. No system of saying if you do X many Y value level good deeds you will get in.
When has that stoped many religious people from believing things that are directly contradicted?

note: not all christians think only christians go to heaven. those are guys like pat robertson who think that bush was mandated by god, i mean, come on, that's crap!
to quote a buddhist saying, "The greater can be found in the lesser."

When has that stoped many religious people from believing things that are directly contradicted?

To my knowledge, never. Religious people (at least the vocal irritating ones) will always believe whatever is easiest to follow, regardless of the text.

I'm not saying that is what has happened here and I realize NeoCannen and the rest do not speak for all Christianity.

note: not all christians think only christians go to heaven. those are guys like pat robertson who think that bush was mandated by god, i mean, come on, that's crap!
to quote a buddhist saying, "The greater can be found in the lesser."

I guess not all Christians think only Christians go to Heaven, but this isn't a Pat Robertson thing. The vast majority of Christians would state this, I think. It's not a far-right idea, it's very very much mainstream. It's just that there are tactful ways to go about this. Robertson's politically minded damnations and anathemas get lots of coverage, but don't react to everything he says by doing the opposite. He's hijacked plenty of initally sound theological ideas.

When has that stoped many religious people from believing things that are directly contradicted?

Very rarely it is true. But my point was that I am curious why non Christians who are very rarely well versed in the Bible consider themselves experts on what is biblically correct. In this case Hakonia's insisting that salvation by works is somehow a principal in line with Christianity.

To my knowledge, never. Religious people (at least the vocal irritating ones) will always believe whatever is easiest to follow, regardless of the text.


Just out of curiosity (I am not being insulting) what do you mean by easy? Do you mean, "thing that I can accept most" or something to that effect?

So, if I don't accept it, God doesn't save me ergo his love isn't unconditional. This really isn't a difficult concept.

No, your wrong. God's love and salvation are diffrent things.

God's love : God's relationship to all human beings. One of love, compassion and patientce (no matter how many times we sin/screw up, we can be redeamed if we want to be). God's love was best demonstrated by Christ's death, meaning that he was willing for his son to die so that all could be with him.

Salvation: The acceptence of God's love by humans so as to enable them to live with God in heaven

God's love is unconditional, human response to it is what is uncertain. And it is human response to it which is how you are saved.

Very rarely it is true. But my point was that I am curious why non Christians who are very rarely well versed in the Bible consider themselves experts on what is biblically correct. In this case Hakonia's insisting that salvation by works is somehow a principal in line with Christianity.
He was being flippant and really making a comparison “if you get to choose what parts of the bible you wish to follow or just make some stuff up” then I can too

all i can say is wtf

Then you need serious vocabularly and grammar enhancement in your life :D

He was being flippant and really making a comparison “if you get to choose what parts of the bible you wish to follow or just make some stuff up” then I can too

How have I chosen sections of the Bible, and or made anything up. Where in the Bible does it support salvation by works?

How have I chosen sections of the Bible, and or made anything up. Where in the Bible does it support salvation by works?
He was arguing into the absurd (not going to explain it right now)

But not speaking of you personally but religion is general … people make all sorts of things up that don’t hold true to the bible in general it happens in every denomination (that and mass misinterpretation) (and sorry to bring up old argument) but if every denomination is following the correct path without different interpretations on things they would be identical but they are not by far (they are using the same text)

So, in a kind of save point:

Everyone agrees that:
When compared to mans standards, God is, at least, unjust.
NonChristian - ghandi/hitler argument
Christian - faith not deed argument
(is there some agreement?)

Things also going are that
Christian -Jesus was born without sin due to God father
NonChristian - Jesus still had sin due to human mother
(although i think thats up to the church if he did or didnt)

Quote and fix if i have major understanding problems.

I agree with the second part. I don't know about the "When compared to mans standards, God is, at least, unjust."

On the contrary. God is just. Man isn't. The NonChristians state that good deeds should be rewarded with good things, so Ghandi should be rewarded. Christians state that because Ghandi also did bad things (even one bad thing) Ghandi needs salvation because he can't make up for this himself. NonChristians responded by saying that Ghandi did a LOT of good things. Christians responded that that wasn't enough. NonChristians said that Jesus was born sinful. Christians said he wasn't, and we're still on this dual nature of Christ thing.

On the contrary. God is just. Man isn't. The NonChristians state that good deeds should be rewarded with good things, so Ghandi should be rewarded. Christians state that because Ghandi also did bad things (even one bad thing) Ghandi needs salvation because he can't make up for this himself. NonChristians responded by saying that Ghandi did a LOT of good things. Christians responded that that wasn't enough. NonChristians said that Jesus was born sinful. Christians said he wasn't, and we're still on this dual nature of Christ thing.

By 'mans standards' i mean what NonChristians live by, ie current morality, law and self belief in right and wrong, not the Bibles rules of good and bad. Of course by Christian standards Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell, but by "man's" ie non-spiritual standards of right and wrong, he doesn't.
(i hope i succeded at being non-offensive)