NationStates Jolt Archive

Moving the discussion out of Stephistan's thread on the hurricane to here. So that we stop hijacking that one.

They're in heaven having the time of their life. They're not going to remember the sinners in their family nor will they care that those people are in hell. They'll only be thinking of the good time they're having.

So Heaven is a life without either individuality or mercy for people that one LOVES? Wow, again, how MERCIFUL!

How can we distinguish between your "true christian" and a crazy bigot that claims to talk to God?

Seriously.

You clearly have no grasp on what a true christian is. Might want to stick to man's law. ;)
excuse me, but do you know how many "true christians" who claimed that they were doing the bidding of god were just murdering SOBs looking for an excuse? take the Crusaders. do you kno how many innocent jews and muslims were killed in the name of god just because they were there? maybe 70,000 jews were slaughtered, maybe more, just for living in a town where the crusaders were passing. How about King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, kicking out more than 250,000 jews, and the inquisition thereafter. and they further expelled all muslims, including women and children who did notheing of any danger. the horrible tortures forced upon anone who came under suspicion? and even christians would be tortured at the hands of the church, if they so much taught from the original source, the hebrew bible, instead of officially sancioned church material. if that is god, he who tortures and rapes, exiles without reason innocents, than i'll have no part in it, and niether should anyone with any sence of decency.

How can we distinguish between your "true christian" and a crazy bigot that claims to talk to God?

Seriously.

Oh crap. Please, will you cut that out? I already sold my house, car, kidney, cell phone and part of my liver to give Bottle cookies. What else can I do? I mean, really, damn! Ah well. Out goes my refrigerator... *Sells it, gives Cat the cookies.*

A true christian is not defined by those who hate christianity.

A true christian is not defined by those who hate christianity.

Okay ..... but you might want to learn Whittier's definition before you jump on his bandwagon.

A true christian is not defined by those who hate christianity.

It sure as heck isn't defined by those that hate EVERYTHING ELSE either.

A true christian is not defined by those who hate christianity.
nobody here (at least as far as i can tell) hates christianity. its the nut jobs' opinions on the "real christianity" we hate

Oh crap. Please, will you cut that out? I already sold my house, car, kidney, cell phone and part of my liver to give Bottle cookies. What else can I do? I mean, really, damn! Ah well. Out goes my refrigerator... *Sells it, gives Cat the cookies.*

I hope to soon be sharing all cookies with Bottle, but more are always appreciated.

Also, you've earned some yourself. **dumps truckload of cookies and milk**

So Heaven is a life without either individuality or mercy for people that one LOVES? Wow, again, how MERCIFUL!
That's another falsehood that mainstream christianity teaches. That torment in hell is eternal. It's effect is eternal but you don't suffer forever.
They won't know the other family members becuase those family members ( the ones who continue to live in sin) will be erased. It will be as if they never existed. So they won't know them. It will be as if they never knew them.

How can we distinguish between your "true christian" and a crazy bigot that claims to talk to God?

Seriously.
By the fruit that they grow you will know them.

I hope to soon be sharing all cookies with Bottle, but more are always appreciated.

Also, you've earned some yourself. **dumps truckload of cookies and milk**

YAY!!! I CAN HAVE A HOUSE AGAIN!!! *Sells the cookies, buys back the stuff he sold*

That's another falsehood that mainstream christianity teaches. That torment in hell is eternal. It's effect is eternal but you don't suffer forever.
They won't know the other family members becuase those family members ( the ones who continue to live in sin) will be erased. It will be as if they never existed. So they won't know them. It will be as if they never knew them.

So heaven potentialy erases you memory of potential loved ones....that's pretty fucked up right there.

By their fruit you will know them.

So, how do we see "their fruit" in the forums?

Okay ..... but you might want to learn Whittier's definition before you jump on his bandwagon.
And you know my definition? tell it then.

YAY!!! I CAN HAVE A HOUSE AGAIN!!! *Sells the cookies, buys back the stuff he sold*
lol, rename yourself cookiemonster

That's another falsehood that mainstream christianity teaches. That torment in hell is eternal. It's effect is eternal but you don't suffer forever.
They won't know the other family members becuase those family members ( the ones who continue to live in sin) will be erased. It will be as if they never existed. So they won't know them. It will be as if they never knew them.

So a person led a good life, loving everyone, helping people out, peacefully (think Ghandi)... and another spent life hating everyone else but sucking up to God. And the first person will have his existance erased because he didn't suck up. Nice God.

I hope to soon be sharing all cookies with Bottle
I like where this is going...

So heaven potentialy erases you memory of potential loved ones....that's pretty fucked up right there.
Why would that be fucked up. And its not heaven that does it. hell does it. But then again, hell is not forever either.

And you know my definition? tell it then.

:headbang:

If you didn't reveal it in the last several threads we discussed this (including your "what is a true christian" thread), then I guess I don't.

Pray tell.

So, how do we see "their fruit" in the forums?
Hmmm. Good question. Only someone with sixth sense would be able to tell.

All I can do is go by what people claim and post is part of their beliefs.

Why would that be fucked up. And its not heaven that does it. hell does it. But then again, hell is not forever either.

Yes, but I wouldn't want my brothers or any other family members memories erased from my head simply because they go to hell. If it's not eternal then we should be safe in the knowledge they will eventually be free of it, not have to forget about them.

I like where this is going...

I live in a community property state, o' fiance. :)

A true Christian is one who belives in the teachings of Jesus Christ and follows those teachings.

I have to agree that those that hate Christianity do not define a true Christian.

Why would that be fucked up. And its not heaven that does it. hell does it. But then again, hell is not forever either.

Yet your merciful God refuses to save them because they never sucked up, refuses to restore them because they, that did no evil to anyone ever, were gay. Etc. Heh.

So a person led a good life, loving everyone, helping people out, peacefully (think Ghandi)... and another spent life hating everyone else but sucking up to God. And the first person will have his existance erased because he didn't suck up. Nice God.
Your not telling the whole story. If the first person accepted christ, he will go to heaven. The second person will not, because he is a false christian.

Hmmm. Good question. Only someone with sixth sense would be able to tell.

All I can do is go by what people claim and post is part of their beliefs.
jeezus, (and not his version), is thier a psyciatrist in the house?

Yes, but I wouldn't want my brothers or any other family members memories erased from my head simply because they go to hell. If it's not eternal then we should be safe in the knowledge they will eventually be free of it, not have to forget about them.
You want to remember that they used to exist, even though they don't anymore? :eek:

Hmmm. Good question. Only someone with sixth sense would be able to tell.

All I can do is go by what people claim and post is part of their beliefs.

I know a lady that has sixth sense. She thinks her pet golden fish talks to her. Saying you know something is dirt easy.

you can have my cookies too bottle *puppy dog eyes*

Yet your merciful God refuses to save them because they never sucked up, refuses to restore them because they, that did no evil to anyone ever, were gay. Etc. Heh.
they refuse his help. They refuse heaven.

Dunno if I want to hop in on this discussion... but I think I'll continue to lurk in case something strikes my fancy enough to reply...

Your not telling the whole story. If the first person accepted christ, he will go to heaven. The second person will not, because he is a false christian.

So. Let me get this straight: A true christian hates everyone, but sucks up and is rewarded. A false Christian is good and helps everyone but, because they don't suck up, they get sent to non-existance. And you say God is fair? To whom?

Quick question. Out of all the different sects of Christianity which one is true? I mean if there are true christians then that would denote that its one group not many. So which one nailed it and which screwed up?

they refuse his help. They refuse heaven.

By daring to have been born in a different culture that didn't know Christianity, they refuse Heaven. Nice.

they refuse his help. They refuse heaven.
1 Q, and i will spell it out clearly:
H O W

You want to remember that they used to exist, even though they don't anymore? :eek:

I'm confused now? Why are people ceasing to exist here?

Edit: And yes I'd want to remember my family members even if they did cease to exist. No way I want to lose my memories of all the good times I've had with them.

There was a woman in Palo Alto, California. She had a son. The military told her that her son was killed in combat on the other side of the world.

The next day, her son's ghost came to her and talked to her. Told her not to believe anything that was written in the Bible. So she tossed it out. She had never read it anyway. And her son, the ghost, was very happy cause he smiled when she did it. He even told her to kill the family cat, which she refused to do. He was not happy about it. But they conversed for several hours before he said he had to go on to the next world. Then he dissappeared.

8 months later, there was a knock on the woman's door. When she opened it, her son was standing there alive and well. It had turned out the military was wrong when it reported he was dead, he actually MIA. She was left confused with hair rising on the back of her neck. She said "If you're still alive and were never dead, what was that thing I was talking a few months back?"

Those who live in sin, cannot tell if they are talking to the spirit of truth.

according to you, they were never offered it, because they were gay. and being gay makes you evil, right, even if you were the most morally upstanding man in the world, 1 "sin" that harms noone, sends them straight to hell.

erm what was i gonna say.......

So. Let me get this straight: A true christian hates everyone, but sucks up and is rewarded. A false Christian is good and helps everyone but, because they don't suck up, they get sent to non-existance. And you say God is fair? To whom?
You misread me.

There was a woman in Palo Alto, California. She had a son. The military told her that her son was killed in combat on the other side of the world.

The next day, her son's ghost came to her and talked to her. Told her not to believe anything that was written in the Bible. So she tossed it out. She had never read it anyway. And her son, the ghost, was very happy cause he smiled when she did it. He even told her to kill the family cat, which she refused to do. He was not happy about it. But they conversed for several hours before he said he had to go on to the next world. Then he dissappeared.

8 months later, there was a knock on the woman's door. When she opened it, her son was standing there alive and well. It had turned out the military was wrong when it reported he was dead, he actually MIA. She was left confused with hair rising on the back of her neck. She said "If you're still alive and were never dead, what was that thing I was talking a few months back?"

Those who live in sin, cannot tell if they are talking to the spirit of truth.
so now not reading the bible is a sin?

Quick question. Out of all the different sects of Christianity which one is true? I mean if there are true christians then that would denote that its one group not many. So which one nailed it and which screwed up?
Depends. Do you want the true answer or do you want the one that won't offend?

Depends. Do you want the true answer or do you want the one that won't offend?

Lets here your version of the truth.

Depends. Do you want the true answer or do you want the one that won't offend?

I think he wants the one that's not megalomaniacal enough to say "MINE! MINE AND MINE ALONE! ONLY MINE! EVERYONE ELSE WILL GO TO HELL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" But, from you, he won't get it.

1 Q, and i will spell it out clearly:
H O W
Because, if a person if taught the ways of true christianity, and continues to live in a way that rejects true christianity (by continuing to live a sinful life), he is rejecting God and by rejecting God he is rejecting heaven.

Depends. Do you want the true answer or do you want the one that won't offend?

True, being non christian it would be hard to offend me with it, or my brother for that matter. :p

Depends. Do you want the true answer or do you want the one that won't offend?
he asked you for the answer. not the inoffensive answer, the "true" answer, because since everything else you've said is offensive, why would he expect this to be any different?

True, being non christian it would be hard to offend me with it, or my brother for that matter. :p
that too

I'm confused now? Why are people ceasing to exist here?

Edit: And yes I'd want to remember my family members even if they did cease to exist. No way I want to lose my memories of all the good times I've had with them.
That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.

according to you, they were never offered it, because they were gay. and being gay makes you evil, right, even if you were the most morally upstanding man in the world, 1 "sin" that harms noone, sends them straight to hell.
Ah. You have asked the right question sir.
If they are gay, but they were never offered a chance to convert, then it is entirely possible they might get into heaven if they follow the ceremonial laws.
For the christian is saved by faith but the nonchristian is dependent upon the ceremonial law. However, the ceremonial law won't be enough to get anyone into heaven.

That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.
god never has "only" options he can do anything, he can give them another chance, he can filter the bad parts into hell, and the good parts into heaven. hes god, and hes omnipotant, meaning he can do whatever the hell he wants

That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.

But in deleting something from existance he is doing something which is leagues beyond something like murder. If something loves you why make you not exist? Why not just let them live in some sort of paradise or land that isn't in heaven where they aren't tormented and still exist?

Some of those things that you said seem to be more true of some sects of Buddhism than Christianity.
The idea of Heaven and Hell not being "Eternal", but temporary states of being/lifestates.
It actually sounds like you're drawing on Buddhism rather than Christianity.

In some sects of Buddhism, Heaven or Hell are states of incarnation/reincarnation (implying that there's a chance for your soul/spirit to learn from your errors and advance to Buddhahood/Nirvana etc).
In others, they imply a state of life at which you currently are (in other words, that one learns from them in this life, as well as in the next).

But my understanding of Christianity was that, once you're in Hell, that's all there is to it (no chance to learn from your errors, assuming that they are errors). And once you're in Heaven, that's all there is to it, too.

And I always thought that that was just something that was part of something that was propagated to control the masses into following the leadership of the time by making them believe that, if they didn't they'd go to Hell (and they wanted to make it sound worse than it was, even if it does exist).

But that's just things that I've picked up along the way.

That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.

Just for reference, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but could you provide us the scripture that mentions this?

That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.

Sooooo... He's an omnipotent being with ONLY ONE OPTION???

That's understandable.

Becuase God is a god of love and can't stand for people to suffer for eternity. No matter how much they sinned or what evil act they committed. But he can't allow them into heaven or back on earth either. So the only option he has is to delete them from existence.

Right, and not existing is better then existing. I can't even comprend non existance, and I'd still rather be in hell then that.

Ah. You have asked the right question sir.
If they are gay, but they were never offered a chance to convert, then it is entirely possible they might get into heaven if they follow the ceremonial laws.
For the christian is saved by faith but the nonchristian is dependent upon the ceremonial law. However, the ceremonial law won't be enough to get anyone into heaven.
if by "ceremonial law" you mean the seven laws of noach, then a gay man who never has anal sex is not guilty of anything

Lets here your version of the truth.
All the denominations got some of it wrong. But all of them got some of it right.
When God comes, he will not take just one denomination. When he comes, he will take a couple of people from this denomination and a couple of people from that denomination. Becuase though the denominations got it wrong, there will be some people within their congregations who got it right.
God will even take a couple of people from the synagogues and mosques.

Some of those things that you said seem to be more true of some sects of Buddhism than Christianity.
The idea of Heaven and Hell not being "Eternal", but temporary states of being/lifestates.
It actually sounds like you're drawing on Buddhism rather than Christianity.

In some sects of Buddhism, Heaven or Hell are states of incarnation/reincarnation (implying that there's a chance for your soul/spirit to learn from your errors and advance to Buddhahood/Nirvana etc).
In others, they imply a state of life at which you currently are (in other words, that one learns from them in this life, as well as in the next).

But my understanding of Christianity was that, once you're in Hell, that's all there is to it (no chance to learn from your errors, assuming that they are errors). And once you're in Heaven, that's all there is to it, too.

And I always thought that that was just something that was part of something that was propagated to control the masses into following the leadership of the time by making them believe that, if they didn't they'd go to Hell (and they wanted to make it sound worse than it was, even if it does exist).

But that's just things that I've picked up along the way.
it also sounds somewhat like the jewish idea (from those jews who believe there is a hell) that one is only there for a length of time, that length being either 1 year, or varying on the level of sin

All the denominations got some of it wrong. But all of them got some of it right.
When God comes, he will not take just one denomination. When he comes, he will take a couple of people from this denomination and a couple of people from that denomination. Becuase though the denominations got it wrong, there will be some people within their congregations who got it right.
God will even take a couple of people from the synagogues and mosques.

Right. But no one that doesn't conform to HIS hand-picked guidelines, even assuming they've been better people than His chosen ones... Nice.

All the denominations got some of it wrong. But all of them got some of it right.
When God comes, he will not take just one denomination. When he comes, he will take a couple of people from this denomination and a couple of people from that denomination. Becuase though the denominations got it wrong, there will be some people within their congregations who got it right.
God will even take a couple of people from the synagogues and mosques.

Okay so what makes let say the calvanist position that there are only a few predestined true believers accepted by god into heavan and that the rest of us are predestined to go to hell?

god never has "only" options he can do anything, he can give them another chance, he can filter the bad parts into hell, and the good parts into heaven. hes god, and hes omnipotant, meaning he can do whatever the hell he wants
True. But the bad parts have contaminated the whole body and the whole soul. How do you redeem that which has become unredeemable?

When you offered the chance to repent of your sins and change your ways, you are being given another chance. When you hear someone pray and it moves you, you are being given another chance.
When a hurricane causes mass loss of life and devastation and your conscience is pricked, you are being given another chance.


Take the story of the earth. Originally God made man overlord of the whole planet. BUt one day he was upset about what mankind was doing to the planet and to each other. So he sent a great flood that wiped out nearly all of mankind. He saved only Noah and his family so man could start over. In the time since the flood, man continues to abuse the earth and his fellow man. Mankind was given a second chance, and still today he continues to screw up. If God thought like the majority of humans do, Hurricane Katrina would have been a hundred times more destructive.

But in deleting something from existance he is doing something which is leagues beyond something like murder. If something loves you why make you not exist? Why not just let them live in some sort of paradise or land that isn't in heaven where they aren't tormented and still exist?
I am sorry. But I don't have the answer to that. I will have to ask God.

I am sorry. But I don't have the answer to that. I will have to ask God.

You wouldn't happen to have his number would you. I want it to make me a sandwhich.[/badjoke]

you know what i think? i think, if there is a god, he just wants us to be the most moral being we can be in our regard to other people, and he doesn't really care what you do by yourself or with another, as long as you don't cause harm to your fellow. at least at the most basic level. god doesn't really give a crap about the belief structure, only about the kidness humans show one another. Otherwise, god is, as actor jim carrey put it in his movie Bruce almighty, "god is a mean kid with a magnifying glass, burning down an anthill". A cruel a sadistic master would send people to hell on a slight infraction. and as iv'e stated before, if thats god, than niether me nor anyone with a shred of morality to them should believe in him.

I am sorry. But I don't have the answer to that. I will have to ask God.

Well I mean you just said you stated the truth of which christian sect was correct. Well if thats the truth you should have no problem refuting the calvanist position. If you can't refute the calvanist position then you really haven't shown us the truth have you?

True. But the bad parts have contaminated the whole body and the whole soul. How do you redeem that which has become unredeemable?

When you offered the chance to repent of your sins and change your ways, you are being given another chance. When you hear someone pray and it moves you, you are being given another chance.
When a hurricane causes mass loss of life and devastation and your conscience is pricked, you are being given another chance.


Take the story of the earth. Originally God made man overlord of the whole planet. BUt one day he was upset about what mankind was doing to the planet and to each other. So he sent a great flood that wiped out nearly all of mankind. He saved only Noah and his family so man could start over. In the time since the flood, man continues to abuse the earth and his fellow man. Mankind was given a second chance, and still today he continues to screw up. If God thought like the majority of humans do, Hurricane Katrina would have been a hundred times more destructive.
show me where it says if anyone does anything bad, all good actions afterward are worth nothing, and 1 ifraction, the tiniest break, and i'll send you straight to the pit for all eternity. and just a side point, god wasn't upset with mankind, he was upset with men, with each and every man that had done evil, and he retaliated against only those who were truly evil acording to the bble. and the three laws that define truly evil are Murder, Idolatry, and Rape (also included is beastiality and Incest) but murderers under law are almost always killed or imprisoned for life, and aside from hinduism nothing around that is widly followed to day comes under idoatry, and rapists get put away, as do zoophiles, quite often, and Incest has its own punishments. these are all the real meanings of those passages, as rendered from thier original hebrew, and im not saying i agree with all of those interpertations either

Some of those things that you said seem to be more true of some sects of Buddhism than Christianity.
The idea of Heaven and Hell not being "Eternal", but temporary states of being/lifestates.
It actually sounds like you're drawing on Buddhism rather than Christianity.

In some sects of Buddhism, Heaven or Hell are states of incarnation/reincarnation (implying that there's a chance for your soul/spirit to learn from your errors and advance to Buddhahood/Nirvana etc).
In others, they imply a state of life at which you currently are (in other words, that one learns from them in this life, as well as in the next).

But my understanding of Christianity was that, once you're in Hell, that's all there is to it (no chance to learn from your errors, assuming that they are errors). And once you're in Heaven, that's all there is to it, too.

And I always thought that that was just something that was part of something that was propagated to control the masses into following the leadership of the time by making them believe that, if they didn't they'd go to Hell (and they wanted to make it sound worse than it was, even if it does exist).

But that's just things that I've picked up along the way.

well, I don't know much about the teachings of buddhism. But the Bible does teach that heaven is eternal but hell is not.

And the concept of burning forever in hell was indeed invented by the church to maintain secular political power. Cause if people are afraid you can send them to be tormented forever, just for questioning some political act of yours, they won't question you nor will they rise up against you.
The communists did similar propaganda to control the masses in the former Soviet Union.

Just for reference, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but could you provide us the scripture that mentions this?
John 3:16 "For so God so loved the world.." You can finish it.

well, I don't know much about the teachings of buddhism. But the Bible does teach that heaven is eternal but hell is not.

And the concept of burning forever in hell was indeed invented by the church to maintain secular political power. Cause if people are afraid you can send them to be tormented forever, just for questioning some political act of yours, they won't question you nor will they rise up against you.
The communists did similar propaganda to control the masses in the former Soviet Union.

Again, could you please quote the verse that says Hell/Sheol/Lake of Fire does not exist forever?

you know what i think? i think, if there is a god, he just wants us to be the most moral being we can be in our regard to other people, and he doesn't really care what you do by yourself or with another, as long as you don't cause harm to your fellow. at least at the most basic level. god doesn't really give a crap about the belief structure, only about the kidness humans show one another. Otherwise, god is, as actor jim carrey put it in his movie Bruce almighty, "god is a mean kid with a magnifying glass, burning down an anthill". A cruel a sadistic master would send people to hell on a slight infraction. and as iv'e stated before, if thats god, than niether me nor anyone with a shred of morality to them should believe in him.

*Wants to give Kiwi a cookie, but decides to give only a handshake.*

I need to keep my house.

Sooooo... He's an omnipotent being with ONLY ONE OPTION???
Even God has to deal with PR. If he doesn't enforce the law, the universe will view him poorly. But he condemns them to eternity of torment, that also, will cause the universe to view him poorly.

Even God has to deal with PR. If he doesn't enforce the law, the universe will view him poorly. But he condemns them to eternity of torment, that also, will cause the universe to view him poorly.

An omnipotent being that has to deal with PR. Okay... I gotta go to bed.

Even God has to deal with PR. If he doesn't enforce the law, the universe will view him poorly. But he condemns them to eternity of torment, that also, will cause the universe to view him poorly.

Right, God shouldn't give a fuck about PR if it's all powerful ect. It could for all it cares unmake us all now and start over. Why would that need PR?

John 3:16 "For so God so loved the world.." You can finish it.

No, no. You misunderstood me. I meant a scripture proclaiming that whatever the opposite of Heaven is isn't eternal. Sorry for the lack of detail in my question.

Again, could you please quote the verse that says Hell/Sheol/Lake of Fire does not exist forever?
don't leave out gehenom

*Wants to give Kiwi a cookie, but decides to give only a handshake.*

I need to keep my house.
lol, *shakes hand, and gives kiwifruit*

don't leave out gehenom

Oops. My bad. :p

.....you people are crazy.....i agree for the most part with kiwi. a true christian shouldnt worry about heaven and hell, a true christian should just do good by his fellow man

somewhere in some gospel jesus says something to the effect of "love your neighbor as you have loved me" that is the basic underlying idea of what defines a true christian, not some doctrine about heaven or hell or purgatory...

Oops. My bad. :p
no prob! :D

.....you people are crazy.....i agree for the most part with kiwi. a true christian shouldnt worry about heaven and hell, a true christian should just do good by his fellow man

somewhere in some gospel jesus says something to the effect of "love your neighbor as you have loved me" that is the basic underlying idea of what defines a true christian, not some doctrine about heaven or hell or purgatory...
Why thank you
*gives Private a kiwifruit*

Why thank you
*gives Private a kiwifruit*
*eats*

thats what comes out of 4 years of required religion class

*eats*

thats what comes out of 4 years of required religion class
and as for me, a lifetime of study will give you a good perspective on the underlying principles.

yea, youd think it would.....but i know some people who seem very wrongheaded about some stuff

A true christian is not defined by those who hate christianity.
Who is it defined by then ... hell if all the little sects agree with eachother

yea, youd think it would.....but i know some people who seem very wrongheaded about some stuff
let me rephrase that: a lifetime of listening to people talk about different religions and figuring out what they are really saying about the underlying principals will make you understand them. a lifetime of listening to the parts you want to hear and ignring those u don't will make you a stupid bigot (usually, anyway)

Who is it defined by then ... hell if all the little sects agree with eachother
hehe, thas a good point.....i guess well know when we die what a good christian really is, and why most of us prolly arent

Well, I suppose I'll go ahead and give my POV. This is the Apostle's Creed, which is accepted my most Reformed Churches (Protestant, Catholic, and some Orthodox). This is what I follow and believe to be the core of Christianty:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

*catholic here means "universal" and not strictly limited to the Roman Catholic church

Well I mean you just said you stated the truth of which christian sect was correct. Well if thats the truth you should have no problem refuting the calvanist position. If you can't refute the calvanist position then you really haven't shown us the truth have you?


Any chance for this to be adressed Whittier--?

hehe, thas a good point.....i guess well know when we die what a good christian really is, and why most of us prolly arent
depends if you are christian or not, huh? not in my case, neway

That's another falsehood that mainstream christianity teaches. That torment in hell is eternal. It's effect is eternal but you don't suffer forever.
They won't know the other family members becuase those family members ( the ones who continue to live in sin) will be erased. It will be as if they never existed. So they won't know them. It will be as if they never knew them.
do you claim to have any scriptural basis for this?

let me rephrase that: a lifetime of listening to people talk about different religions and figuring out what they are really saying about the underlying principals will make you understand them. a lifetime of listening to the parts you want to hear and ignring those u don't will make you a stupid bigot (usually, anyway)
thats a bit closer :p

some really good people can have some interesting ideas tho....i went to nicaragua one time with a baptist group that did some evangelism and medical missions, one of the doctors with us was muslim, and one of the leaders once said that even he would go to hell, tho he is a good person

depends if you are christian or not, huh? not in my case, neway
you not christian?

thats a bit closer :p

some really good people can have some interesting ideas tho....i went to nicaragua one time with a baptist group that did some evangelism and medical missions, one of the doctors with us was muslim, and one of the leaders once said that even he would go to hell, tho he is a good person
[sigh] stupid, closeminded people. has anyone hear seen the movie Dogma?

you not christian?
correct

[sigh] stupid, closeminded people. has anyone hear seen the movie Dogma?
yup

thas a good movie :D

correct
which religion??

hehe, thas a good point.....i guess well know when we die what a good christian really is, and why most of us prolly arent
We will also see the character of “god” personally I am betting he is more loving then the described Christian one.

which religion??
havent decided, though i was brought up jewish

We will also see the character of “god” personally I am betting he is more loving then the described Christian one.
thats my general theory.....

We will also see the character of “god” personally I am betting he is more loving then the described Christian one.
it would be hard to imagine him as less loving

havent decided, though i was brought up jewish
cool, youve researched all the religions...or at least a lot of em?

it would be hard to imagine him as less loving
specially if were talkin the puritan version, that one scares me

cool, youve researched all the religions...or at least a lot of em?
Yup. My father is an anthropologist, so its easy to get my hands on material.

it would be hard to imagine him as less loving

If he was any much more loving, well, I don't know what would happen but it'd be bloody hard.

Yup. My father is an anthropologist, so its easy to get my hands on material.
cool. i gotta do that one day. cuz i figure if the religion has followers, then chances are they got something right somewhere. if you look at all of them then there is prolly a bit more truth than each seperately

Yup. My father is an anthropologist, so its easy to get my hands on material.

I'm deep in Christian study, and have a hobby of learning Celtic and Norse lore. I'm familiar with Roman and Greek mythology, and when I get the chance (and time), I'd like to delve deeper in Japanese myth.

Seems you and I share in the same hobby, eh? :)

If he was any much more loving, well, I don't know what would happen but it'd be bloody hard.
depends on which version of christianity youre talkin about, the puritan god was apathetic

I'm deep in Christian study, and have a hobby of learning Celtic and Norse lore. I'm familiar with Roman and Greek mythology, and when I get the chance (and time), I'd like to delve deeper in Japanese myth.

Seems you and I share in the same hobby, eh? :)
yup! next year im going to iceland, so im going to delve into norse this year

depends on which version of christianity youre talkin about, the puritan god was apathetic
i love the way they fled europe because of persecution, only to found the strictest for of christianity yet

depends on which version of christianity youre talkin about, the puritan god was apathetic

Actually, the Puritan God "dangles us over an open flame", according to a ver prominent minister of the 1700's, whose name I forget at the moment...

(I'll post it once I google it long enough)

i love the way they fled europe because of persecution, only to found the strictest for of christianity yet
yea, pretty crazy people those puritans....they had a scriptural basis for at least some of their stuff tho......city on a hill and whatnot

depends on which version of christianity youre talkin about, the puritan god was apathetic

My church teaches that God is a Loving god first and foremost, and from my personal experiences, I'd say they are right.

Actually, the Puritan God "dangles us over an open flame", according to a ver prominent minister of the 1700's, whose name I forget at the moment...

(I'll post it once I google it long enough)
john edwards

Actually, the Puritan God "dangles us over an open flame", according to a ver prominent minister of the 1700's, whose name I forget at the moment...

(I'll post it once I google it long enough)
i know, i had to read part of a puritan lecture thingy in english in high school, their god doesnt particularly care about us according to this guy, if your lucky, your saved, otherwise, to hell with you....literally

yea, pretty crazy people those puritans....they had a scriptural basis for at least some of their stuff tho......city on a hill and whatnot

Puritans are crazy. Jesus was a party animal.

My church teaches that God is a Loving god first and foremost, and from my personal experiences, I'd say they are right.
thats what most forms of christianity teach, but if you look at all of the things they say, there are contradictions to this.....trust me, ive seen some of them close up

john edwards

That's right. Thanks. *chocolate shake fors j00*

Good with mythology, horrible with names. :p

thats what most forms of christianity teach, but if you look at all of the things they say, there are contradictions to this.....trust me, ive seen some of them close up
you can see them far away too, lol, just kidding

thats what most forms of christianity teach, but if you look at all of the things they say, there are contradictions to this.....trust me, ive seen some of them close up

Got to love the calvanists version of god. He loves you but some of you are going to hell no matter what you do. Thats a hell of a quota to have to fill right there.

I haven't read all the posts, but I like this take on Christianity:

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

you can see them far away too, lol, just kidding
some of them, yea.....

I haven't read all the posts, but I like this take on Christianity:

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
nice backup quotes

I haven't read all the posts, but I like this take on Christianity:

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
w00t thats kinda what i said...sorta....and its definitely what i meant

That's right. Thanks. *chocolate shake fors j00*

Good with mythology, horrible with names. :p

A lot of people forget that most of Jonathan Edwards' sermons weren't anything like that one. He really wasn't a "scare the Hell out of you" kind of guy, but he preaches that one sermon and gets branded that way for the rest of history.

A lot of people forget that most of Jonathan Edwards' sermons weren't anything like that one. He really wasn't a "scare the Hell out of you" kind of guy, but he preaches that one sermon and gets branded that way for the rest of history.
and yet that sermon sums up for the most part the puritan belief system....

That's pretty much all of the bible you need to remember other than the Crucifixion right there.

It's lovely when you can distill the essence of a book into a page or less.

we weren't saying that he was, we were just looking for the name of the man who said that. we weren't saying that he himself was like tha, but that the particular brand of christianity that he preached in had many ideas like that

excuse me, but do you know how many "true christians" who claimed that they were doing the bidding of god were just murdering SOBs looking for an excuse? take the Crusaders. do you kno how many innocent jews and muslims were killed in the name of god just because they were there? maybe 70,000 jews were slaughtered, maybe more, just for living in a town where the crusaders were passing. How about King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, kicking out more than 250,000 jews, and the inquisition thereafter. and they further expelled all muslims, including women and children who did notheing of any danger. the horrible tortures forced upon anone who came under suspicion? and even christians would be tortured at the hands of the church, if they so much taught from the original source, the hebrew bible, instead of officially sancioned church material. if that is god, he who tortures and rapes, exiles without reason innocents, than i'll have no part in it, and niether should anyone with any sence of decency.
hello! Pope is evil. the catholics worship idols. jesus on a cross is an idol. hello! brains people, just think about it. THE POPE IS EVIL!!!

and yet that sermon sums up for the most part the puritan belief system....

This is more or less true. I'm just saying that it doesn't sum up Edwards himself. He was more about God's love than hellfire and brimstone.

hello! Pope is evil. the catholics worship idols. jesus on a cross is an idol. hello! brains people, just think about it. THE POPE IS EVIL!!!
i get the feeling that that is a bit extreme

it also sounds somewhat like the jewish idea (from those jews who believe there is a hell) that one is only there for a length of time, that length being either 1 year, or varying on the level of sin
I am not familiar with the Jewish version of hell. If you are, enlighten me.
I just know that the hell of the Bible is not a place that exists forever. There will be a fire that burns and not only erases the people in hell, but deletes hell itself.
Thus hell ceases to exist.

This is more or less true. I'm just saying that it doesn't sum up Edwards himself. He was more about God's love than hellfire and brimstone.
ok, but like kiwi said, we were using it not so much for the man himself as for the religion....we just forgot the name of the man

I am not familiar with the Jewish version of hell. If you are, enlighten me.
I just know that the hell of the Bible is not a place that exists forever. There will be a fire that burns and not only erases the people in hell, but deletes hell itself.
Thus hell ceases to exist.
can you show me part of the bible that says that?? give me a quote

Right. But no one that doesn't conform to HIS hand-picked guidelines, even assuming they've been better people than His chosen ones... Nice.
We don't know that however. Only God knows what is in the hearts of men.

Well I mean you just said you stated the truth of which christian sect was correct. Well if thats the truth you should have no problem refuting the calvanist position. If you can't refute the calvanist position then you really haven't shown us the truth have you?
Normally I hate quoting myself but I think this question deserves to be answered.

Okay so what makes let say the calvanist position that there are only a few predestined true believers accepted by god into heavan and that the rest of us are predestined to go to hell?
I don't believe in predistination. It's not supported by the Bible.

I don't believe in predistination. It's not supported by the Bible.
hes using that as an example, what hes asking is for you to prove that there is no support for this in the bible

I am not familiar with the Jewish version of hell. If you are, enlighten me.
I just know that the hell of the Bible is not a place that exists forever. There will be a fire that burns and not only erases the people in hell, but deletes hell itself.
Thus hell ceases to exist.
where is the scripture to back that up?

So, how do we see "their fruit" in the forums?

Do you know what kind of people the first Christians were? They were the kind of people who were willing to be beheaded, crucified, burned alive, and fed to animals for what they believed in. Those kind of people are the kind of people whose "fruits" you could see no matter where they were, or what they were doing.
A lot has happened to the Christian Church in the past two thousand years, and it is going to take an entire generation of Christians that say, "We are ready to be a radically devoted people," before you or anyone else will be able to read a message in a forum and see "their fruit."
Until the Christian Church decides to fight for people who can't fight for themselves, no one will ever see any "fruits," because there won't be any "fruits" to see. Jesus Christ gave his disciples one final commandment before he ascended into heaven: "Go, and preach my gospel." When the Church as a whole begins to truly fulfil that commandment, then you will see our fruits.

We don't know that however. Only God knows what is in the hearts of men.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.

That was a comic way back when, I think...

My bible quote left the most recent page. Now people are going to forget it and start fighting again. Maybe I should just post the exact same thing verbatim on the next page...

But that would be spam...

But it's a good point, I think...

Dilemna...

Could a more experienced member recommend a course of action?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.

That was a comic way back when, I think...

My bible quote left the most recent page. Now people are going to forget it and start fighting again. Maybe I should just post the exact same thing verbatim on the next page...

But that would be spam...

But it's a good point, I think...

Dilemna...

Could a more experienced member recommend a course of action?

you quoted the stuff from romans, right?

that WAS a good point....

I am not familiar with the Jewish version of hell. If you are, enlighten me.
I just know that the hell of the Bible is not a place that exists forever. There will be a fire that burns and not only erases the people in hell, but deletes hell itself.
Thus hell ceases to exist.
there are several opinions, i will tell you two
1) after one dies, one goes to hell for one year. the amount of pain he gets during that year is equal to what he did in life.
2) there is no hell, or heaven. the souls of the dead, just as they were seperated from god in the begining, rejoin him. the evil and unrightious, think of it as hell, because they pleasure themselves through physicality. the rightous ones percieve it as heaven because they are close to god, and they derive pleasure from that closeness

I don't believe in predistination. It's not supported by the Bible.

Thats nice that you don't believe in it but what makes your belief any more valid then the calvinists. Here are the five points of calvinism for you that were codified in the Synod of Dort.

* Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are unable to choose to follow God and be saved.
* Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
* Limited atonement (or particular redemption or definite atonement): The death of Christ actually takes away the penalty of sins of those on whom God has chosen to have mercy. It is "limited" to taking away the sins of the elect, not of all humanity, and it is "definite" and "particular" because atonement is certain for those particular persons.
* Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.
* Perseverance of the saints (or preservation of the saints): Any person who has once been truly saved from damnation must necessarily persevere and cannot later be condemned. The word saints is used in the sense in which it is used in the Bible to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint).


They all seem to follow sound reasoning. What makes your view of whats going to happen more valid then this. I mean there is certainly no metion of god picking and choosing people from the different denominations in the bible.

Well, I suppose I'll go ahead and give my POV. This is the Apostle's Creed, which is accepted my most Reformed Churches (Protestant, Catholic, and some Orthodox). This is what I follow and believe to be the core of Christianty:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

*catholic here means "universal" and not strictly limited to the Roman Catholic church


That is the core of Christianity, summed up into couple of poetic lines.

Any chance for this to be adressed Whittier--?
what is the calvanist position and why am I supposed to be refuting it?

That is the core of Christianity, summed up into couple of poetic lines.
that however is irrelevant to the discussion, to believe that is to be christian, but to be a good christian, one must act on ones beliefs. also, to the arguments presented by economic....this is oirrelevant because all christian sects believe it

that however is irrelevant to the discussion, to believe that is to be christian, but to be a good christian, one must act on ones beliefs. also, to the arguments presented by economic....this is oirrelevant because all christian sects believe it
score!

what is the calvanist position and why am I supposed to be refuting it?
look up

and because you said something about truth somewhere, so if it was true, then refuting calvanism should be no problem

to the arguments presented by economic....this is oirrelevant because all christian sects believe it
I'm sorry all Christian sects believe that god has chosen a few people that he's going to save and send the rest to hell?

I'm sorry all Christian sects believe that god has chosen a few people that he's going to save and send the rest to hell?
you missunderstand, im saying that the pouint made in the thing i was quoting was irrelevant to the arguments you were presenting

A lot of people forget that most of Jonathan Edwards' sermons weren't anything like that one. He really wasn't a "scare the Hell out of you" kind of guy, but he preaches that one sermon and gets branded that way for the rest of history.
he wasn't?

you missunderstand, im saying that the pouint made in the thing i was quoting was irrelevant to the arguments you were presenting

Oh my bad.

Whittier-- I have asked repetedly for you to back up your statements with scripture I can assume that you are ignoring this request but I have decided to ask again. What scripture do you have that backs up your veiw on hell?

also what denomination are you if you are christian?

Oh my bad.
thas aiite, i worded it badly

thas aiite, i worded it badly
Its okay. I'm just interested in him proving his truth and invalidating the view I have set before him.

A. The Theory of Predestination ante prœvisa merita

This theory, championed by all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Suarez, Francis de Lugo), asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. In the order of time, however, the Divine decree is carried out in the reverse order, the predestined receiving first the graces preappointed to them, and lastly the glory of heaven as the reward of their good works. Two qualities, therefore, characterize this theory: first, the absoluteness of the eternal decree, and second, the reversing of the relation of grace and glory in the two different orders of eternal intention (ordo intentionis) and execution in time (ordo executionis). For while grace (and merit), in the order of eternal intention, is nothing else than the result or effect of glory absolutely decreed, yet, in the order of execution, it becomes the reason and partial cause of eternal happiness, as is required by the dogma of the meritoriousness of good works (see MERIT). Again, celestial glory is the thing willed first in the order of eternal intention and then is made the reason or motive for the graces offered, while in the order of execution it must be conceived as the result or effect of supernatural merits. This concession is important, since without it the theory would be intrinsically impossible and theologically untenable.

But what about the positive proof? The theory can find decisive evidence in Scripture only on the supposition that predestination to heavenly glory is unequivocally mentioned in the Bible as the Divine motive for the special graces granted to the elect. Now, although there are several texts (e. g. Matt., xxiv, 22 sq.; Acts, xiii, 48, and others) which might without straining be interpreted in this sense, yet these passages lose their imagined force in view of the fact that other explanations, of which there is no lack, are either possible or even more probable. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that "classical" passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth"). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a "classical text" and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath "power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour" (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle's thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)].

It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations. But a problem so deep and mysterious, which does not belong to the substance of Faith and which, to use the expression of Pope Celestine I (d. 432), is concerned with profundiores difficilioresque partes incurrentium quœstionum (cf. Denz., n. 142), cannot be decided on the sole authority of Augustine. Moreover, the true opinion of the African doctor is a matter of dispute even among the best authorities, so that all parties claim him for their conflicting views [cf. O. Rottmanner, "Der Augustinismus" (Munich, 1892); Pfülf, "Zur Prädestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus" in "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1893, 483 sq.]. As to the unsuccessful attempt made by Gonet and Billuart to prove absolute predestination ante prœvisa merita "by an argument from reason", see Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, 443 sq.


From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm


I may not be Catholic, but I will admit that their research and doctrinal logic is impeccable. I especially love reading Aquinas's Summa Theologica.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.

That was a comic way back when, I think...

My bible quote left the most recent page. Now people are going to forget it and start fighting again. Maybe I should just post the exact same thing verbatim on the next page...

But that would be spam...

But it's a good point, I think...

Dilemna...

Could a more experienced member recommend a course of action?

Just repost it.

Its okay. I'm just interested in him proving his truth and invalidating the view I have set before him.
i notice that still hasnt happened

and to neo whatever, that is way too long, could you sum it up?

goodnight everyone!

That is the core of Christianity, summed up into couple of poetic lines.
Too bad gods mandate in the specifics is not as clear cut ... after this point there are hundreds of different ways for follwing gods "will" and not all of them agree

Its alright to say this is the core but if this is all that is nessisary why all the seperate sects? why not just follow that core ... thats it

goodnight everyone!
cya

i notice that still hasnt happened

and to neo whatever, that is way too long, could you sum it up?

It's basically improbable when compared to various other theories, and its conclusion is its essential presupposition, thus we are getting into circular logic when dealing with it.

I take this passage as a general summary of Christianity:

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

EDIT: And my timing to get it be the first post of the next page was good.

*dances around happily*

I mean, uh...*runs*

Thats nice that you don't believe in it but what makes your belief any more valid then the calvinists. Here are the five points of calvinism for you that were codified in the Synod of Dort.

* Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are unable to choose to follow God and be saved.
* Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
* Limited atonement (or particular redemption or definite atonement): The death of Christ actually takes away the penalty of sins of those on whom God has chosen to have mercy. It is "limited" to taking away the sins of the elect, not of all humanity, and it is "definite" and "particular" because atonement is certain for those particular persons.
* Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.
* Perseverance of the saints (or preservation of the saints): Any person who has once been truly saved from damnation must necessarily persevere and cannot later be condemned. The word saints is used in the sense in which it is used in the Bible to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint).


They all seem to follow sound reasoning. What makes your view of whats going to happen more valid then this. I mean there is certainly no metion of god picking and choosing people from the different denominations in the bible.


From Matthew. There are two in the house. The cometh and taketh one but leaveth the other. There are two people in the field. THe Lord cometh and taketh one of them but leaveth the other.


There were 10 virgins. They knew the Bridegroom would eventually come. Some of them had no oil. But instead of getting oil, they continued to party and pay no heed to the fact they had no oil. When the bridegroom came, he took the ones who had oil ( and were prepared) but left the ones who had no oil (and were not prepared).

It's basically improbable when compared to various other theories, and its conclusion is its essential presupposition, thus we are getting into circular logic when dealing with it.
thanks, :confused: but umm....its like after midnight here, so can you use smaller words please

From Matthew. There are two in the house. The cometh and taketh one but leaveth the other. There are two people in the field. THe Lord cometh and taketh one of them but leaveth the other.


There were 10 virgins. They knew the Bridegroom would eventually come. Some of them had no oil. But instead of getting oil, they continued to party and pay no heed to the fact they had no oil. When the bridegroom came, he took the ones who had oil ( and were prepared) but left the ones who had no oil (and were not prepared).
ok, the bridegroom is good, but the first 2 do more to prove this than to refute it, as they can be interpreted as arbitrary choosing according to what God has predetermined

It's basically improbable when compared to various other theories, and its conclusion is its essential presupposition, thus we are getting into circular logic when dealing with it.

Neo you seem to be missing what I am getting at here. Whitter presented a statement which he said was the truth about which one of the christian sects was right. Now I asked him what makes his assertion more valid then the calvinist assertion that certain people get saved and others dont no matter what they do.

Also could you explain to me how that arguement is circular logic just so I can understand where you are comming from here.

ok, the bridegroom is good, but the first 2 do more to prove this than to refute it, as they can be interpreted as arbitrary choosing according to what God has predetermined

Not only that but he does not offer any proof from the bible to show that the truth he has put forward is infact correct.

Not only that but he does not offer any proof from the bible to show that the truth he has put forward is infact correct.
yea, he should do some pf that

hehe here i am tryin ta make him prove somethin that i didnt bother to read

I take this passage as a general summary of Christianity:

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

EDIT: And my timing to get it be the first post of the next page was good.

*dances around happily*

I mean, uh...*runs*
ok peoples, i gotta go. so ill leave you with a reminder of this, which is what i believe too

ok, the bridegroom is good, but the first 2 do more to prove this than to refute it, as they can be interpreted as arbitrary choosing according to what God has predetermined
I knew they could be viewed that way. So I included the bridegroom story. The first two were part of the same parable and meant to convey that God will take people from each denomination.
The Bridegroom story was meant to convey that people are not predistined.

I would also refer to the tale of Jonah. When God sent him to let the Ninevites know that God was going to destroy them for their sins. As you know, Jonah did that. But then the people repented and God decided to spare them. And Johah got pissed off at God because God did not fulfill his word or prophecy and instead changed it because the people of Nineveh had changed their ways.

thanks, :confused: but umm....its like after midnight here, so can you use smaller words please
yes smaller words

yea, he should do some pf that

hehe here i am tryin ta make him prove somethin that i didnt bother to read
pf?

Neo you seem to be missing what I am getting at here. Whitter presented a statement which he said was the truth about which one of the christian sects was right. Now I asked him what makes his assertion more valid then the calvinist assertion that certain people get saved and others dont no matter what they do.

Also could you explain to me how that arguement is circular logic just so I can understand where you are comming from here.

II Peter 3: 9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."


1Timothy 2:3-4

3. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;"

4. "Who will have all men to be saved, and - to come unto the knowledge of the truth."



I'm tired, so I'll use the simple, get-to-the-point question: If God is not willing that any should perish, then would He predestine them to Hell? It flies in the face of free will.

II Peter 3: 9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."


1Timothy 2:3-4

3. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;"

4. "Who will have all men to be saved, and - to come unto the knowledge of the truth."



I'm tired, so I'll use the simple, get-to-the-point question: If God is not willing that any should perish, then would He predestine them to Hell? It flies in the face of free will.


I think he was playing devil's advocate. Hence why I didn't answer directly. Still, those are as good if not better than the ones I used.

II Peter 3: 9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."


1Timothy 2:3-4

3. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;"

4. "Who will have all men to be saved, and - to come unto the knowledge of the truth."



I'm tired, so I'll use the simple, get-to-the-point question: If God is not willing that any should perish, then would He predestin them to Hell? It flies in the face of free will.
Neo I'm asking Whitter to do something and you seem to be content on jumping in here. I'm not really arguing that calvin's views were right only that Whitter stated something as the "truth" and I said that if it was the truth he would have no problem invalidating the calvinist views.

And just for the hell of it I might as well argue a bit as a devils advocate for the Calvinists.
God isnt pershing them to hell.
* Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are unable to choose to follow God and be saved.
However god has chosen those who he is going to save.
* Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
* Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.

So in essense because humans ate the fruit they became selfserving and inclined to serve their own interests. God through his grace saves those he chooses.

Edit: I think he was playing devil's advocate. Hence why I didn't answer directly. Still, those are as good if not better than the ones I used.

Wait so I ask you a legitimate question using other views and your refusing to answer me directly? Why?

The two basic, fundamental tenets of Christianity:

Jesus said: And you are to have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. There is no other law greater than these. - Mark 12:30 - 31


These two commands are interlinked. You can't learn how to love your neighbours before you learn to love God. However, you can't love God until you love your neighbour.

LOVE is one of the biggest teaching of Christ. But it doesn't mean that you can ever neglect that God is also JUST. You can't just sin and expect God to love you by default. He does, but He is also just and you will be judged fairly for what you do.

A. The Theory of Predestination ante prœvisa merita

This theory, championed by all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Suarez, Francis de Lugo), asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. In the order of time, however, the Divine decree is carried out in the reverse order, the predestined receiving first the graces preappointed to them, and lastly the glory of heaven as the reward of their good works. Two qualities, therefore, characterize this theory: first, the absoluteness of the eternal decree, and second, the reversing of the relation of grace and glory in the two different orders of eternal intention (ordo intentionis) and execution in time (ordo executionis). For while grace (and merit), in the order of eternal intention, is nothing else than the result or effect of glory absolutely decreed, yet, in the order of execution, it becomes the reason and partial cause of eternal happiness, as is required by the dogma of the meritoriousness of good works (see MERIT). Again, celestial glory is the thing willed first in the order of eternal intention and then is made the reason or motive for the graces offered, while in the order of execution it must be conceived as the result or effect of supernatural merits. This concession is important, since without it the theory would be intrinsically impossible and theologically untenable.

But what about the positive proof? The theory can find decisive evidence in Scripture only on the supposition that predestination to heavenly glory is unequivocally mentioned in the Bible as the Divine motive for the special graces granted to the elect. Now, although there are several texts (e. g. Matt., xxiv, 22 sq.; Acts, xiii, 48, and others) which might without straining be interpreted in this sense, yet these passages lose their imagined force in view of the fact that other explanations, of which there is no lack, are either possible or even more probable. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that "classical" passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth"). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a "classical text" and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath "power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour" (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle's thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)].

It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations. But a problem so deep and mysterious, which does not belong to the substance of Faith and which, to use the expression of Pope Celestine I (d. 432), is concerned with profundiores difficilioresque partes incurrentium quœstionum (cf. Denz., n. 142), cannot be decided on the sole authority of Augustine. Moreover, the true opinion of the African doctor is a matter of dispute even among the best authorities, so that all parties claim him for their conflicting views [cf. O. Rottmanner, "Der Augustinismus" (Munich, 1892); Pfülf, "Zur Prädestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus" in "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1893, 483 sq.]. As to the unsuccessful attempt made by Gonet and Billuart to prove absolute predestination ante prœvisa merita "by an argument from reason", see Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, 443 sq.


From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm


I may not be Catholic, but I will admit that their research and doctrinal logic is impeccable. I especially love reading Aquinas's Summa Theologica.

I'm still trying to find a copy of that.

I believe the part with the potter. The potter was referring to the christian. A christian who gives himself fully over to the will of God is like the clay in the potters hand.

As you stated, it is not a support for predestination.

Neo I'm asking Whitter to do something and you seem to be content on jumping in here. I'm not really arguing that calvin's views were right only that Whitter stated something as the "truth" and I said that if it was the truth he would have no problem invalidating the calvinist views.

And just for the hell of it I might as well argue a bit as a devils advocate for the Calvinists.
God isnt pershing them to hell.
* Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are unable to choose to follow God and be saved.
However god has chosen those who he is going to save.
* Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
* Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.

So in essense because humans ate the fruit they became selfserving and inclined to serve their own interests. God through his grace saves those he chooses.

Edit:

Wait so I ask you a legitimate question using other views and your refusing to answer me directly? Why?


I thought you would see my answers. Apparently you didn't. Shall I repost them for you?

Edit: Actually I did answer them. But I went to the PX to get some cheese nips first. When I came back and read as many posts as I could, I gave an answer.

As you stated, it is not a support for predestination.

I'd just like to know what sources he used to come to the conclusion For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens.

Also Whittier I've asked you to provide proof from the bible that god will come and take some people from one denomination and some from others.

From Matthew. There are two in the house. The cometh and taketh one but leaveth the other. There are two people in the field. THe Lord cometh and taketh one of them but leaveth the other.


There were 10 virgins. They knew the Bridegroom would eventually come. Some of them had no oil. But instead of getting oil, they continued to party and pay no heed to the fact they had no oil. When the bridegroom came, he took the ones who had oil ( and were prepared) but left the ones who had no oil (and were not prepared).

These two passages do not express support your view. Where is the reference to the church's denominations? I could intepret the first for predestination. The second one does seem to show support for the view that god takes those who follow his path. But then again in your view you presupose something that may not infact be true.

I'd just like to know what sources he used to come to the conclusion For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens.

Also Whittier I've asked you to provide proof from the bible that god will come and take some people from one denomination and some from others. So far you haven't said a passage that supports the 'truth" you claim to have told me.
Are you familiear with Peter's dream? In which he was hungry and God presented him with unclean animals and told him to eat them. And he said he could not because they were unclean. But God said, that which I make clean, do not call unclean. That passage was referring to the debate as to whether gentiles could be saved or whether christianity was for jews only. God was saying that Christianity was for both jew and gentile. Remember that there jewish members of the early church that were teaching that you had to be jewish to be saved.

One moment and I will repost my answer from earlier.

Are you familiear with Peter's dream? In which he was hungry and God presented him with unclean animals and told him to eat them. And he said he could not because they were unclean. But God said, that which I make clean, do not call unclean. That passage was referring to the debate as to whether gentiles could be saved or whether christianity was for jews only. God was saying that Christianity was for both jew and gentile. Remember that there jewish members of the early church that were teaching that you had to be jewish to be saved.

One moment and I will repost my answer from earlier.

So we are believing this on the basis of someones dream. How can we prove that this dream is not infact made up by Peter. Can we prove that Peter really had a dream where God was infact talking to him? If I said I had a dream that god told me to do such and such I'd be called crazy. Why are we taking the word of a writer's dream. Surely if someone wrote a passage today that said we need to all live a certain way and he justifies it with well a supreme diety told me this in a dream you would be skeptical if not outright calling him crazy.

I'd just like to know what sources he used to come to the conclusion For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens.

Also Whittier I've asked you to provide proof from the bible that god will come and take some people from one denomination and some from others.



These two passages do not express support your view. Where is the reference to the church's denominations? I could intepret the first for predestination. The second one does seem to show support for the view that god takes those who follow his path. But then again in your view you presupose something that may not infact be true.

Ok. To find denominations, you have to use the term divisions.

See, denominations came up from divisions within the church.

John 17: 20 - 23
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

Paul condemns them.

1 Corinthians 3
3
for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, 3 are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
4
Whenever someone says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human?
5
4 5 What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
8
The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
9
For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10
6 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,

Ephesians 2

14
8 For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,
15
abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person 9 in place of the two, thus establishing peace,
16
and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it.
17
He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near,
18
for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
19
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,
20
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. 10
21
Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;
22
in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

So we are believing this on the basis of someones dream. How can we prove that this dream is not infact made up by Peter. Can we prove that Peter really had a dream where God was infact talking to him? If I said I had a dream that god told me to do such and such I'd be called crazy. Why are we taking the word of a writer's dream. Surely if someone wrote a passage today that said we need to all live a certain way and he justifies it with well a supreme diety told me this in a dream you would be skeptical if not outright calling him crazy.
Having had such dreams, I would be more inclined to listen to what the person had to say. Before judging.
People could say you were crazy. But that does not make it so.
If you think you had a dream where God was talking to you, there would be a way to prove it to yourself.
If the person who had the dream was preaching a lifestyle counter to the bible or counter to God's grace, I would say he was a false prophet.

The question of who is a true Christian or not has always plagued mankind. Being a Christian doesn't guarantee you do the right thing. Being Christian simply means you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal saviour.
Rom. 3:10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom. 3:23-26: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
A true Christian is someone who has accepted the gift of salvation from God in their heart. The problem is we can't know for sure if someone has done this. Because we can't see a person's heart, unlike God, we have to decide by their actions.
James 2:17-18: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
The only way humans can try and determine a true Christian is by watching their actions, but we are not perfect and do not know. By the actions of those such as the crusaders I am lead to believe most were probably not true Christians, because theirs actions are not justified by the Bible.
You can e-mail me at flatballq@yahoo.com

So we are believing this on the basis of someones dream. How can we prove that this dream is not infact made up by Peter. Can we prove that Peter really had a dream where God was infact talking to him? If I said I had a dream that god told me to do such and such I'd be called crazy. Why are we taking the word of a writer's dream. Surely if someone wrote a passage today that said we need to all live a certain way and he justifies it with well a supreme diety told me this in a dream you would be skeptical if not outright calling him crazy.


The crux of Christianity relies upon the doctrine of apostolic infallibility (no matter how much a certain someone might want to deny it and she knows who she is :p ), as we could not know what was truth or fallacy if they lied. If the Holy Spirit spoke through Peter, then I have no choice but to accept Peter's claim.

The crux of Christianity relies upon the doctrine of apostolic infallibility (no matter how much a certain someone might want to deny it and she knows who she is :p ), as we could not know what was truth or fallacy if they lied. If the Holy Spirit spoke through Peter, then I have no choice but to accept Peter's claim.
If someone thinks the apostles were not infallible, then anything Jesus said or did is questionable, since He Himself never wrote anything down (that we know of) or had anything He said or did written down while He was alive that is still around today. Am I correct in assuming that that is the logic you used?

Christianity is following St Paul's interpretation of the life, teachings and divinity of Jesus. You would be surprised at just how much scriptural quotation for some of the more awkward sects in Christianity originate in Romans.

I do not believe in Heaven as some sort of otherworldly place, yet I agree with and try to put into practice pretty much everything Jesus said. This is no contradiction; it is merely a different interpretation of what he meant.

Ultimately, Christianity doesn't just follow Jesus. It follows one specific understanding of what Jesus did, and it's that understanding and the execution of it with which many people have difficulties.

Christianity is following St Paul's interpretation of the life, teachings and divinity of Jesus. You would be surprised at just how much scriptural quotation for some of the more awkward sects in Christianity originate in Romans.

I do not believe in Heaven as some sort of otherworldly place, yet I agree with and try to put into practice pretty much everything Jesus said. This is no contradiction; it is merely a different interpretation of what he meant.

Ultimately, Christianity doesn't just follow Jesus. It follows one specific understanding of what Jesus did, and it's that understanding and the execution of it with which many people have difficulties.

What you say is true. Most denominations, both the odd sects and all the mainstream denominations use Romans.

And there is plenty of scripture to support what you say about the difficulties.

Jesus himself stated that it would be easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than it would be for him to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Some, who have not understanding, mistakenly believe he referring to the eye of a literal needle or that he was just making a symbolic statement. But it was referring to a small whole in the wall in which merchants would push their camels through after dark because the gates are always closed when the sun comes down.

Others say it means that the rich are banned from heaven. But Jesus was actually referring to the difficulty that the rich would have in getting into heaven because they would have a very difficult time following his teachings. Remember, the rich man was told to give up every thing, including his family. Which is something he was not willing to do. The story of Jesus's interaction with rich man applies to every person living in the United States, Canada, Japan, and Europe because those are the rich nations. Hence God requires much of their people. Yet they, as you can observe from the real world, they are much less willing to follow the teachings of Christ, than people in the third world. They are attached to their possessions. Where as in the third world, there really is no such attachment. Such that following the teachings of christ is easier for someone in the third world.
Aye, the first world has advanced greatly both technologically and economically. But spiritually they have turned back the clock thousands of years.
As with everything, those who live in the first world seek the easy way out of every situation. The reason the Europeans didn't want to go war in Iraq is because avoiding war was the easy way out for them. For Bush, the easy out was to wage war. Neither wanted the long and difficult route.

Jesus said, "Short and wide is the path that many people follow. But that path is the one that leads to destruction. Short and narrow and treacherous is the road that leads to eternal life. Very few there are that follow it. "

There was man, who came up to Jesus, after one of his sermons. And Jesus told him to leave everything behind, and follow him. The man said "Master I will come, but first let me go and bury my father who has just died."
Jesus responded, "God is the God of the living. Not the God of the dead. Except that you be willing to abandon it all for my sake, you will not see eternal life."

Those who are unwilling to abadon possessions, family, friends, or even their very way of life will have an exceeding hard time getting to heaven and most will not make. Note that I am not telling you that you have to leave your family, only that you have to be willing to do so if the family is drawing you away from what you need to do to get into heaven.

Jesus also stated that if any part of your body causes you to sin, chop it off or gouge it out. Of course he didn't mean literally. He actually meant, "deprive it". For the part that causes you to sin, defiles your entire body and will cause you to go to hell. For he stated "It is better to enter heaven with only one eye or only one hand than it is to enter hell with your whole body intact."