NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

I suppose it would depend on what you believe about God, and sin, and heaven and hell.

I can't say who is in hell and who is in heaven, I have no way to know, and no standing to try to judge.

I do believe though that all are sinners and the wages of sin is death, and the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.
So, kiddo, did you simply wake up today and decide "I'm going to find the most subtly offensive title to get Christians all riled up before they even read the post I leave"?

There's more to getting to heaven than just being down with God and the Jesus. However, there's also more than just Heaven and Hell to consider. Did it occur to you that just because somebody's NOT in Heaven, doesn't mean they're leading an eternity of damnation and suffering?

I believe Gandhi may not be in Heaven, but I absolutely DON'T believe he's in Hell.

Simonist']So, kiddo, did you simply wake up today and decide "I'm going to find the most subtly offensive title to get Christians all riled up before they even read the post I leave"?How is the topic offensive at all? He asked a question that encompases the fundamental question of how christians regard good secular people, or good people of a different faith.

I firmly believe that the church exagerated the importance of faith to strengthen their own position, or it might have come from the people as a self-righteous way to not actually be good.

There is a scripture where Jesus said that gain his blessing through their acts. I believe that it is in Matthew, but I'm not sure.

Simonist']So, kiddo, did you simply wake up today and decide "I'm going to find the most subtly offensive title to get Christians all riled up before they even read the post I leave"?

There's more to getting to heaven than just being down with God and the Jesus. However, there's also more than just Heaven and Hell to consider. Did it occur to you that just because somebody's NOT in Heaven, doesn't mean they're leading an eternity of damnation and suffering?

I believe Gandhi may not be in Heaven, but I absolutely DON'T believe he's in Hell.

That's a fair point. Still, as good as Gandhi was- I mean, I think he's as great a man as Jesus or the Buddha was- anything less than heaven would be an injustice, and I can't help but characterize any system where gandhi gets less than heaven as asinine.

My feeling is that lot of it depends on your particular brand of Christianity. The group I was once a member of would have said definitively, no, he's not in heaven. Of course, they didn't believe in a burning hell either, so it's not like he was being tormented or anything, but he certainly wuoldn't have been in heaven.

Something I read recently though, may shed some light on this--it was from the new pope, and while I'm not sure if it's a new thing or an older piece, it had to do with limbo and the issue of infant baptism. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, we have to trust that God is more forgiving than even we can imagine Him to be, and that he is not unjust. Under that belief system, I can see Gandhi getting in (assuming you believe in heaven and all the rest of it).

That's a fair point. Still, as good as Gandhi was- I mean, I think he's as great a man as Jesus or the Buddha was- anything less than heaven would be an injustice, and I can't help but characterize any system where gandhi gets less than heaven as asinine.
again it depends on what you believe, I don't think anyone is "good enough" to get into heaven, nobody can work their way in, in the end we are all the same, we are all sinners, nobody is better than anyone else, some of us have accepted the gift of forgivness and others haven't.

My feeling is that lot of it depends on your particular brand of Christianity. The group I was once a member of would have said definitively, no, he's not in heaven. Of course, they didn't believe in a burning hell either, so it's not like he was being tormented or anything, but he certainly wuoldn't have been in heaven.

Something I read recently though, may shed some light on this--it was from the new pope, and while I'm not sure if it's a new thing or an older piece, it had to do with limbo and the issue of infant baptism. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, we have to trust that God is more forgiving than even we can imagine Him to be, and that he is not unjust. Under that belief system, I can see Gandhi getting in (assuming you believe in heaven and all the rest of it).
true, but would following His own rules be unjust? wouldn't it be unjust of God to set out rules, and then change them at the last minute?

just asking.

If Ghandi was in hell, he would have either been kicked out or have taken over by now. We're talking about a man that lived in rural India, dealing with people who have nothing and yet they managed to expel the British empire, simply by not going along with the system.

Ghandi would see hell as a challenge more than a punishment.

true, but would following His own rules be unjust? wouldn't it be unjust of God to set out rules, and then change them at the last minute?

just asking.
Those are questions over which theological arguments that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands have been hammered out time and again. I'm not a believer anymore, so I'm hardly in a position to give a definitive answer, not that I could give one in the first place. The problem is, so far as I can see it, that there's no real way to know what the rules are, at least as far as this kind of stuff is concerned, because as a historical source of what Jesus actually taught, the Bible isn't reliable and it's not definitive. It was moldede by the early church leaders to put together a doctrine that itself has been argued over for nearly two thousand years now, and it no closer to any real reconcilition.

My advice to anyone worrying over a matter like this is only this--trust in God. If He's as just as you believe Him to be, then He's going to make the right call, right? That's essentially what God told Job, after all--who are you (as a human, not you specifically) to question what I say is right?

Those are questions over which theological arguments that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands have been hammered out time and again. I'm not a believer anymore, so I'm hardly in a position to give a definitive answer, not that I could give one in the first place. The problem is, so far as I can see it, that there's no real way to know what the rules are, at least as far as this kind of stuff is concerned, because as a historical source of what Jesus actually taught, the Bible isn't reliable and it's not definitive. It was moldede by the early church leaders to put together a doctrine that itself has been argued over for nearly two thousand years now, and it no closer to any real reconcilition.

My advice to anyone worrying over a matter like this is only this--trust in God. If He's as just as you believe Him to be, then He's going to make the right call, right? That's essentially what God told Job, after all--who are you (as a human, not you specifically) to question what I say is right?

good point. (and thanks for adding the "not you specifically")

good point. (and thanks for adding the "not you specifically")
No problem. One good thing that my former church instilled in me was the idea that God was going to do what was right, and that even if we didn't understand how it was right, we needed to trust in that. Now like I said, I'm not a believer anymore, but I think that's a lesson that many who currently claim to be Christians could stand to remember. When my mom was having trouble with some busybodies in the congregation, she came across this scripture from somewhere in Thessalonians, I believe--Paul wrote "you should make it your aim to mind your own business and do good works with your hands." Jesus had the saying about clearing the rafter from your own eye before pulling the straw out of your neighbor's. The extended lesson from both of those scriptures, I think, is that you've got to trust God to handle the disobedient, but you've also got to trust that He's going to take care of those who deserve taking care of.

again it depends on what you believe, I don't think anyone is "good enough" to get into heaven, nobody can work their way in, in the end we are all the same, we are all sinners, nobody is better than anyone else, some of us have accepted the gift of forgivness and others haven't.You actually believe that we are all equal? You think ghandi is as much of a sinner as a killer? What's the point of leading a decent life if all you have to do to be on easy streat once you croak is "accept the gift of forgiveness"? Again, is accepting this gift more important to the powers that be, than actually doing good deeds?

Well, I am not a sinner

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.
Yes. Yes he is.

To be specific in the Ninth Level of Hell with Judas, Brutus and Cassius.

Am I the only one that finds this discussion hilariously theoretical? We're arguing about the entrance admissions to places that to our knowledge, don't exist.

Anyway, I still think the real question is "how do christians regard moral people of other faith?". Clearly most christians regard them as moral people all the same - how then can they reconcile the theological 'admissions' that accompany such stuperstitions as heaven and hell, even if they genuinely believe them to exist?

So, to Christians who believe that faith is necesary for slavation: is Gandhi in hell

is this thread name a freudian slip or what???

I firmly believe that the church exagerated the importance of faith to strengthen their own position, or it might have come from the people as a self-righteous way to not actually be good.

There is a scripture where Jesus said that gain his blessing through their acts. I believe that it is in Matthew, but I'm not sure.


Mat. 25: 31-46. Also check out James 2:14-26

i think it's fairly shitty that we're debating whether gandhi is in heaven or hell.

Any Hundu's want to debate what Jesus was reincarnated as?

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.


"goodness" does not matter before God. Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven right now. How? Jesus Christ. If God were to examine our lives and let us into heaven based on how "righteous" we lived, or how "good" we were, NOONE who was EVER born would get in. Jesus' death on the cross paid for Dahmer's wicked crimes, my own sins (which are many :( ), and EVERY sin EVER commited by humanity-past,present, and future.

All an individual must do to go to heaven is accept Jesus' sacrifice-IE accept him as your savior. It's great not having to worry about where I'm going to end up when this life is over! :D

I am taking The Exejius (I think that's how you say it) my senior year at college, so I'll really be able to rip into theology then. As of now I've only taken beginner's and intermediate New Testament.

i think jesus was either reincarnated as a lemur, or possibly a horse...

Gandhi is in limbo, and Jesus was reincarnated as a horse

That's a fair point. Still, as good as Gandhi was- I mean, I think he's as great a man as Jesus or the Buddha was- anything less than heaven would be an injustice, and I can't help but characterize any system where gandhi gets less than heaven as asinine.

You are very close to deifying Gandhi, something he abhorred and tried to avoid.

I am a Gandhian myself but Gandhi has his faults as he himself acknowledged.

Any Hundu's want to debate what Jesus was reincarnated as?

I am not a "Hundu" but I do think that Jesus was an exemplary bhakthi yogi and he would most certainly be a liberated soul and not bound by the cycle of karma and reincarnation.

Anyway, I still think the real question is "how do christians regard moral people of other faith?". Clearly most christians regard them as moral people all the same - how then can they reconcile the theological 'admissions' that accompany such stuperstitions as heaven and hell, even if they genuinely believe them to exist?interesting question.

for me, Unbelievers are not "Evil"
You can have people who don't believe in God and still be "Good"
Just as you can have those who profess in being Christians but not be Christian like in living.

However, the Bible does state, you need both Faith and Deeds to enter Heaven.

This entire discussion is analogous to the Schoolmen of Mideval Europe debating how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. :rolleyes:

how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.

23

23

Thank you for not saying that early forties number from youknowwhat by youknowwho.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus and Ghandi (or Gandhi) - both great men and moral teachers - have been reincarnated as daisies, or whatever happened to grow on their grave sites.

I believe that there is a strong case to be made that Jesus never considered himself divine, but was deified by his followers and the gospel writers in the decades and centuries after his death.

Buddha was agnostic, but was himself turned into a god by his followers. Be interesting to see if the same thing happens with Gandhi.

People believe what they want according to their upbringing and preferences. None of us have ever seen "heaven" or "hell", nor have any Christians that I know of, so frankly I am not that interested in what Christians believe I have to do in order to be admitted to their particular version of nirvana.

There's a word for things that no one can see, touch, hear, smell, taste or measure in any way: imaginary.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

he really was not that awesome douche. use someone like the founding fathers who did not completely believe.

This entire discussion is analogous to the Schoolmen of Mideval Europe debating how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. :rolleyes:

What kind of dance? Conga? Hip-hop? Tango? They all take varying amounts of space.

You actually believe that we are all equal? You think ghandi is as much of a sinner as a killer?
yes. I don't see it as a measure of degree so much as an absolute, you are either perfect or imperfect, you either accept Christ or you don't. It doesn't matter if you are "mostly good" nobody is perfect, therefore we are all flawed.

If you had 3 glasses of water, one is half milk and half water, one is 1/4 milk and 3/4 water, and the third is all water except for 3 small drops of milk, it really doesn't matter how much milk is in the water, they are all varying degrees of cloudy, but none of them are pure. The glass with 3 drops is still impure, the glass with 1/2 milk is impure.


What's the point of leading a decent life if all you have to do to be on easy streat once you croak is "accept the gift of forgiveness"? Again, is accepting this gift more important to the powers that be, than actually doing good deeds?
I suppose it depends on why you are doing good deeds. If you are being "good " to try to escape punishment, then I suppose there isn't a point. I have devoted my life to Christ, I do the things I do out of love for Him. If I love Him I will keep his comandments.

yes. I don't see it as a measure of degree so much as an absolute, you are either perfect or imperfect, you either accept Christ or you don't. It doesn't matter if you are "mostly good" nobody is perfect, therefore we are all flawed.

If you had 3 glasses of water, one is half milk and half water, one is 1/4 milk and 3/4 water, and the third is all water except for 3 small drops of milk, it really doesn't matter how much milk is in the water, they are all varying degrees of cloudy, but none of them are pure. The glass with 3 drops is still impure, the glass with 1/2 milk is impure.

So everyone should be slight-in-jail, even the murderers and the saints?

That's the problem in a world without moral relativism...

I suppose it depends on why you are doing good deeds. If you are being "good " to try to escape punishment, then I suppose there isn't a point. I have devoted my life to Christ, I do the things I do out of love for Him. If I love Him I will keep his comandments.

And you'll abdicate your social responsibility as a human being.

So everyone should be slight-in-jail, even the murderers and the saints?

That's the problem in a world without moral relativism...
I was speaking to someone who thinks that if someone is "less of a sinner" that they are good enough on their own to get into heaven. The Bible says all have sinned, and that the wages of sin is death, I was trying to illustrate that no matter how "good" you are that you are still impure, we all are. The Bible is very simple if you sin you deserve death, the gift of God is eternal life.

And you'll abdicate your social responsibility as a human being.
and what is my social responsibility?

I was talking to someone who asked me "if being good can't get you into heaven then why be good at all?" I was explaining that there are other reasons to "be good", mine is my commitment to God, others may have other reasons. If everyone was only being good to get into heaven than we would have a huge problem with all the athiests of the world wouldn't we?

The answer is no, Ghandi is not in Hell. Nor is anyone else.

I don't believe in Hell, or even the concept of Hell. I don't think that God would be so cruel to condemn someone to an eternity of torment for wrongs done in a finite lifetime.

Even if there was a Hell, I HIGHLY doubt that Ghandi would be in it. All it would do is prove to me that God needs to get his priorities straight.

I suppose it would depend on what you believe about God, and sin, and heaven and hell.

I can't say who is in hell and who is in heaven, I have no way to know, and no standing to try to judge.

I do believe though that all are sinners and the wages of sin is death, and the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Then you must believe that Ghandi and anyone else who didn't believe in Jesus is "dead" and thereby in hell.

Not to mention all the poor suckers that came before Jesus Christ even existed.

Simonist']So, kiddo, did you simply wake up today and decide "I'm going to find the most subtly offensive title to get Christians all riled up before they even read the post I leave"?

There's more to getting to heaven than just being down with God and the Jesus. However, there's also more than just Heaven and Hell to consider. Did it occur to you that just because somebody's NOT in Heaven, doesn't mean they're leading an eternity of damnation and suffering?

I believe Gandhi may not be in Heaven, but I absolutely DON'T believe he's in Hell.

Then where is he? And please provide the Biblical basis for your belief.

You actually believe that we are all equal? You think ghandi is as much of a sinner as a killer? What's the point of leading a decent life if all you have to do to be on easy streat once you croak is "accept the gift of forgiveness"? Again, is accepting this gift more important to the powers that be, than actually doing good deeds?
It's funny, I actually had a conversation with my dad about this last night. The truth is: yes. If one lives a life devoted to the Lord and someone else lives a life of sin and sincerly begs forgiveness at the last minut, they are equal. Yeah, kinda sucks...

"goodness" does not matter before God. Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven right now. How? Jesus Christ. If God were to examine our lives and let us into heaven based on how "righteous" we lived, or how "good" we were, NOONE who was EVER born would get in. Jesus' death on the cross paid for Dahmer's wicked crimes, my own sins (which are many :( ), and EVERY sin EVER commited by humanity-past,present, and future.

All an individual must do to go to heaven is accept Jesus' sacrifice-IE accept him as your savior. It's great not having to worry about where I'm going to end up when this life is over! :D

I am taking The Exejius (I think that's how you say it) my senior year at college, so I'll really be able to rip into theology then. As of now I've only taken beginner's and intermediate New Testament.

Well, that was convincing. Dahmer is in Heaven and Ghandi isn't. I think I'll convert. :headbang:

yes. I don't see it as a measure of degree so much as an absolute, you are either perfect or imperfect, you either accept Christ or you don't. It doesn't matter if you are "mostly good" nobody is perfect, therefore we are all flawed.

If you had 3 glasses of water, one is half milk and half water, one is 1/4 milk and 3/4 water, and the third is all water except for 3 small drops of milk, it really doesn't matter how much milk is in the water, they are all varying degrees of cloudy, but none of them are pure. The glass with 3 drops is still impure, the glass with 1/2 milk is impure.

If you "accept Christ," you are perfect?

So, Smunkeeville, do you have the hubris to declare yourself perfect?

There really can be no debate on this subject.
If you are a Christian, then you must believe that Ghandi is not in Heaven, since he did not at any time accept Jesus as his personal saviour.

Its quite stupid, really, and completely eliminates the idea of achieving Heaven through good works, but it is clearly written.

Ergo, if you believe the bible to be truth, then you are bound to follow its ideals.
Therefore, Ghandi is not in Heaven.

You cannot pick and choose what particular scriptures to follow, and wich ones not to, although every single Christian does this.
Many of them will say that they believe Ghandi is in Heaven, and convieniently ignore the passage wich states "No man shall enter Heaven, but through me".
The same way, one will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and quote Leviticus, meanwhile forgetting that Leviticus also states that if an unmarried woman gets raped, she should be scourged, but not killed, becuase its probably her fault.

and that, my friends, is another example of the most backwards, lying, and misinterpereted religion ever to exist.

All this silly religion business. We Comanches just smoek peyote and lie on the couch.:)

You cannot pick and choose what particular scriptures to follow, and wich ones not to, although every single Christian does this.

what's so atrocious about critical thinking? it's not like the kikes who wrote these books knew or agreed with each other.

Oooh...hitting the Jews in the nose....harsh. You know, they'll call you racist for using the word kikes.

There really can be no debate on this subject.
If you are a Christian, then you must believe that Ghandi is not in Heaven, since he did not at any time accept Jesus as his personal saviour.

Its quite stupid, really, and completely eliminates the idea of achieving Heaven through good works, but it is clearly written.

Ergo, if you believe the bible to be truth, then you are bound to follow its ideals.
Therefore, Ghandi is not in Heaven.

You cannot pick and choose what particular scriptures to follow, and wich ones not to, although every single Christian does this.
Many of them will say that they believe Ghandi is in Heaven, and convieniently ignore the passage wich states "No man shall enter Heaven, but through me".

Alright, let me throw this at you:

What if, after you die, Jesus comes to you and says, "Here I am. I exist. Do you believe?" Does it say in the bible that you have to accept Him in life?

what's so atrocious about critical thinking? it's not like the kikes who wrote these books knew or agreed with each other.


Critical thinking is great, if you can use it and apply it to everything.
However, a christian believes the bible is the LAW OF GOD, and therefore, is bound to adhere to those laws, set forth in those books, by the prophets.
To imply that its ok to follow only the WORDS OF GOD, that you deem "good", is heresy.

However, as every single christian does this, every single christian is a hypocrite.

Alright, let me throw this at you:

What if, after you die, Jesus comes to you and says, "Here I am. I exist. Do you believe?" Does it say in the bible that you have to accept Him in life?


Your asking the wrong person, Im a fairly militant athiest.
Im thinking there is a passage concerning this, but damned if I can remember what it is.
I can tell you that in the gnostic text of Peter, Jesus states that every one gets into heaven, regardless of sins, some must simply spend longer in Hell than others.

There really can be no debate on this subject.
If you are a Christian, then you must believe that Ghandi is not in Heaven, since he did not at any time accept Jesus as his personal saviour.

Its quite stupid, really, and completely eliminates the idea of achieving Heaven through good works, but it is clearly written.

Ergo, if you believe the bible to be truth, then you are bound to follow its ideals.
Therefore, Ghandi is not in Heaven.

You cannot pick and choose what particular scriptures to follow, and wich ones not to, although every single Christian does this.
Many of them will say that they believe Ghandi is in Heaven, and convieniently ignore the passage wich states "No man shall enter Heaven, but through me".
The same way, one will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and quote Leviticus, meanwhile forgetting that Leviticus also states that if an unmarried woman gets raped, she should be scourged, but not killed, becuase its probably her fault.

and that, my friends, is another example of the most backwards, lying, and misinterpereted religion ever to exist.

Well, you can always argue that the Bible is written by men. It may contain words of God, but maybe not everything is recorded adequately. From that point of view, you can say that not everything is like God meant it or wanted it.

Critical thinking is great, if you can use it and apply it to everything.
However, a christian believes the bible is the LAW OF GOD, and therefore, is bound to adhere to those laws, set forth in those books, by the prophets.
To imply that its ok to follow only the WORDS OF GOD, that you deem "good", is heresy.

However, as every single christian does this, every single christian is a hypocrite.
You seem to know a lot about what ALL Christians believe. I, myself, believe the bible to be the WORD OF GOD as interpreted by people. Now, as I also believe people suck hardcore, I feel pretty secure in saying it my be a little off.

Your asking the wrong person, Im a fairly militant athiest.
Im thinking there is a passage concerning this, but damned if I can remember what it is.
I can tell you that in the gnostic text of Peter, Jesus states that every one gets into heaven, regardless of sins, some must simply spend longer in Hell than others.
You don't say! I never would have guessed...

Well, you can always argue that the Bible is written by men. It may contain words of God, but maybe not everything is recorded adequately. From that point of view, you can say that not everything is like God meant it or wanted it.


Ah ha!

This you see, is a slippery slope that leads to too many questions.
For, if we accept that the word of God, as stated in the bible, is flawed, through the interperetation of man, then we have to wonder how MUCH of it is innacurate.
If we do this, then can we assume ANY of it is correct?

If we can, how?
To do so, is to start picking and choosing wich scriptures we like, and wich ones we dont, and that leads to outright heresy again.

You don't say! I never would have guessed...


Like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl.

You seem to know a lot about what ALL Christians believe. I, myself, believe the bible to be the WORD OF GOD as interpreted by people. Now, as I also believe people suck hardcore, I feel pretty secure in saying it my be a little off.


Well. certainly, it would be arrogant of me to to claim to know the mind of all christians, but, I live in the unofficial religious capital of the world, you see.
My town has more churches per capita, than any city in the world.
So I get to talk to many, many of them, everyday.

While im no theologian, I do enjoy casual study of the bible, if for nothing else, to "know thy enemy", if you will.

Ah ha!

This you see, is a slippery slope that leads to too many questions.
For, if we accept that the word of God, as stated in the bible, is flawed, through the interperetation of man, then we have to wonder how MUCH of it is innacurate.
If we do this, then can we assume ANY of it is correct?

If we can, how?
To do so, is to start picking and choosing wich scriptures we like, and wich ones we dont, and that leads to outright heresy again.

Well it surely leads to many questions - that's why there are so many different kinds of Christians around.

And no - if you take this kind of reasoning, then you can't be sure about any parts, you can merely look for consistancy or pray for enlightment or something.

Ah ha!

This you see, is a slippery slope that leads to too many questions.
For, if we accept that the word of God, as stated in the bible, is flawed, through the interperetation of man, then we have to wonder how MUCH of it is innacurate.
If we do this, then can we assume ANY of it is correct?

If we can, how?
To do so, is to start picking and choosing wich scriptures we like, and wich ones we dont, and that leads to outright heresy again.
Ah, so we except the bible as absolute truth, and become heritics, OR we inturprit it to make it more reasonable... and become heritics. Wee.

Everything that is said to you about God, Backwoods, you will counter. Let me leave you with this:

Maybe, in the end, there is no God, no Christ, no Heaven, no Hell. Our whole world turns out to just be a natural occurcence, with no guiding powers behind it. Maybe we just rot in the Earth and push up daisies when we die. But the thought of salvation gives me hope for our twisted little planet. I rather like hope.

Alright, let me throw this at you:

What if, after you die, Jesus comes to you and says, "Here I am. I exist. Do you believe?" Does it say in the bible that you have to accept Him in life?

One thing that you need to understand about Christianity is that under Christianity is your life is your chance and only chance to accept Jesus Christ as God become man as the savior of the world. As Lee Strobel said in one of his various books on the subject addressing this issue, quoting another skeptic, (roughly this) "'So why does someone go to Hell just because they didnt believe in the right stuff during their life? I mean, there can't be a completely fair God if he condemns us to an enternity in Hell. Shouldn't there be an incubation period of some sort? A chance to hear it all through after life? I mean, that would be much more fair.' Here's the rub. Life IS the incubation period in which you get a chance to hear it all through." Now, some may say, 'If he wants us to be ABLE to believe in him, why doesnt he give a sign DURING life?' Now, this is a rough area. If you ask the majority of Christians, they will say everyday, if you look, you see sign of God. Here's a good quote. "Every experience of beauty points toward eternity." Meaning basically that every thing around, in the world, all of its beauty, is a sign signaling towards a Creator. As a very famed chemist once said, "In life, in every cell, it all screams out CREATOR! CREATOR! The sheer complexity of it all should be proof enough." Now, if you want to hear about complexity, I would recommend the book 'Darwin's Black Box'. It is and excellent book. I have seen and recognized this in my everyday life. And it all strengthens my faith.

Here's another thing. In Christianity, God calls for us to have faith. Now think about this. If God blatantly came before us there would be no need for faith. Now, if you look at it this way, God created humans, us, to have people to fellowship with, that would love him freely with their own will and want. Now if God popped up in front of you shot down fires from the skies or something, that wouldn't quite call for faith would it? You have the evidence, it's almost as if you HAVE to believe, and you would be a fool not to. But God wants followers who love him because they want to and they have faith,there's the key word, that he exists and is the one true God and the Creator. If God wanted us to love him without question he would have created us so. But that would be a world of robots. People programmed to love their creator. But one of God's attributes is being loving. It would not be loving or compassionate to create a world full of people who were forced without being able to stop loving him.

One other thing. God did not create sin or evil in this world. He created the possibility for it. Once again the free will pops up again. To not create the possibility for evil and making us only able to do good, which would obviously include loving God, it contradics his loving attribute, and his want to have followers who have chosen to follow him.

Here's another thing. In Christianity, God calls for us to have faith. Now think about this. If God blatantly came before us there would be no need for faith. Now, if you look at it this way, God created humans, us, to have people to fellowship with, that would love him freely with their own will and want. Now if God popped up in front of you shot down fires from the skies or something, that wouldn't quite call for faith would it? You have the evidence, it's almost as if you HAVE to believe, and you would be a fool not to. But God wants followers who love him because they want to and they have faith,there's the key word, that he exists and is the one true God and the Creator. If God wanted us to love him without question he would have created us so. But that would be a world of robots. People programmed to love their creator. But one of God's attributes is being loving. It would not be loving or compassionate to create a world full of people who were forced without being able to stop loving him.

Then why did God show himself on a regular basis in the OT if people are required to have faith out of free will?

Then why did God show himself on a regular basis in the OT if people are required to have faith out of free will?

Ah, I love that question. First of all, you must remember this. Back in the times when the OT was being written, there was not yet the whole manuscript of God's word to men. To give orders or direction, he would have to appear to them himselft. Now today, we have the entire Bible, All the direction and God's commands compiled into it. There's no longer need for God to come up to us. We have his former commands that cover all aspects of our time on this Earth

And you must remember that the people whom God appeared to were already his followers. Remember?

Ah, I love that question. First of all, you must remember this. Back in the times when the OT was being written, there was not yet the whole manuscript of God's word to men. To give orders or direction, he would have to appear to them himselft. Now today, we have the entire Bible, All the direction and God's commands compiled into it. There's no longer need for God to come up to us. We have his former commands that cover all aspects of our time on this Earth

That's not really an answer to my question.

You said:

Here's another thing. In Christianity, God calls for us to have faith. Now think about this. If God blatantly came before us there would be no need for faith.

But he did. He clearly denied a free-will based faith to people in the OT.

And you must remember that the people whom God appeared to were already his followers. Remember?

That doesn't matter. He denied the free-will. They could no longer choose otherwise.

That's not really an answer to my question.

You said:



But he did. He clearly denied a free-will based faith to people in the OT.

Read the post I made after that. I mentioned that those people were already his followers. They had already chosen to follow

Read the post I made after that. I mentioned that those people were already his followers. They had already chosen to follow

And what about Adam and Eve? Did they have a choice?

Ah, I love that question. First of all, you must remember this. Back in the times when the OT was being written, there was not yet the whole manuscript of God's word to men. To give orders or direction, he would have to appear to them himselft. Now today, we have the entire Bible, All the direction and God's commands compiled into it. There's no longer need for God to come up to us. We have his former commands that cover all aspects of our time on this EarthI wonder if that means that God deprived certain people their free will. So what would happen to them? Would they go to hell because they didn't believe on faith?

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.
I don't necesarily think that just because you don't believe in GOD himself that you'd go to hell i just think you have to be morally right and yet have faith in your religion Christian or not, and try to be a kind person, and so on.

And you must remember that the people whom God appeared to were already his followers. Remember?

What about the Egyptians? Didn't God show his powers to them? And send angels?

Surely an omnipotent God could do better than a poorly interprited book 2000 years ago.

That is if it is possible for this God to interfere in the universe.

I suppose it would depend on what you believe about God, and sin, and heaven and hell.

I can't say who is in hell and who is in heaven, I have no way to know, and no standing to try to judge.

I do believe though that all are sinners and the wages of sin is death, and the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ.
i do believe with you, also i agree in what i said earlier though.
But in all at least to go to heaven and be considered a Christian you do have to believe that Jesus died for you on the Cross for our sins replacing that lamb that would be sacrificed.
So then we would have to do everything that is mentioned in Leviticus

I wonder if that means that God deprived certain people their free will. So what would happen to them? Would they go to hell because they didn't believe on faith?

That would be quite ironic, wouldn't it.

Surely an omnipotent God could do better than a poorly interprited book 2000 years ago.

That is if it is possible for this God to interfere in the universe.
the thing is it's a holy book not written himself, but by his prophets, and it's not like a book giving every specific detail, and most of the stuff mentioned in there is symbolic not meant to be read literally take Revalations for example.

If you "accept Christ," you are perfect?
of course not. I think I wasn't clear.
Sin causes a need for a savior, if you have not sinned you would not need one, all have sinned though and all are in need of a savior.

I was talking about the people who try to put a scale up and weigh someone's goodness, trying to see if the good outweighs the bad, and think that that really matters, what I was saying is that it doesn't, everyone has some bad and no matter how much bad you have you are imperfect.

Saying that someone who denies Christ can get into heaven doesn't compute for me, since Jesus says that He is the only way into heaven. It's simple either you accept or you don't. You can be ubergood, and still not be good enough, nobody is righteous. Nobody is sinless (except for God) it takes a sinless soul to even be in the presence of God, Jesus died for our sins to give us a pardon, his blood wipes away our sins, it is He who saves us, not ourselves.

So, Smunkeeville, do you have the hubris to declare yourself perfect?
nope, nobody does, least of all me.

i do believe with you, also i agree in what i said earlier though.
But in all at least to go to heaven and be considered a Christian you do have to believe that Jesus died for you on the Cross for our sins replacing that lamb that would be sacrificed.
So then we would have to do everything that is mentioned in Leviticus
You can't work your way into heaven, nobody can. We are flawed, we can't/won't keep the law, we have to rely on God's grace and mercy.

Saying that someone who denies Christ can get into heaven doesn't compute for me, since Jesus says that He is the only way into heaven. It's simple either you accept or you don't. You can be ubergood, and still not be good enough, nobody is righteous. Nobody is sinless (except for God) it takes a sinless soul to even be in the presence of God, Jesus died for our sins to give us a pardon, his blood wipes away our sins, it is He who saves us, not ourselves.I think you're confusing denial here. Wouldn't denial be explicitly refusing to believe something that is proven? AFAIK, athiests just don't care because no one can prove anything. They don't deny anything, or am I wrong here?

So, to Christians who believe that faith is necesary for slavation: is Gandhi in hell

is this thread name a freudian slip or what???

Oooo -- grammar foul! That's a deduction of five debate points and you lose a turn...

:p

I think you're confusing denial here. Wouldn't denial be explicitly refusing to believe something that is proven?
not in this sense. I am talking about denying the gift of salvation, as in not accepting the gift.

AFAIK, athiests just don't care because no one can prove anything. They don't deny anything, or am I wrong here?
It depends on the atheist, I suppose. Some of them don't or can't believe in God because He can't be proven, some don't believe because it seems contradictory to what they know of nature, and some imo don't believe because they don't want to have to live what they consider a "sheltered life". I assume there are about 40 million more reasons too, but I am not privy to all of them. ;)

And what about Adam and Eve? Did they have a choice?

Yes. If you actually read on in Genesis, they CHOSE to sin. You might say the serpent tricked them, but then again, they could have CHOSEN not to.

And about the Egyptians. God worked through Moses, his follower, trying to convince the Egyptians. The Egyptians, once again, CHOSE not to. In Genesis it specifically states that the Pharoah of that time 'hardened his heart'. And he said to Moses, 'I will not let your people go.

the thing is it's a holy book not written himself, but by his prophets, and it's not like a book giving every specific detail, and most of the stuff mentioned in there is symbolic not meant to be read literally take Revalations for example.

Yeah my point was boardering, the bible is in no way even close to a direct contact with god -

Ah, I love that question. First of all, you must remember this. Back in the times when the OT was being written, there was not yet the whole manuscript of God's word to men. To give orders or direction, he would have to appear to them himselft. Now today, we have the entire Bible, All the direction and God's commands compiled into it. There's no longer need for God to come up to us. We have his former commands that cover all aspects of our time on this Earth

Yes. Yes he is.

To be specific in the Ninth Level of Hell with Judas, Brutus and Cassius.


Not that i'm agreeing with this, but if you had actually read the inferno, you'd see that the virtuous unbaptized are placed in elysium, one of the circles of the first level. Unless you where reffering to his movement against the British occupation, in which case you are just an asshat

I wonder if that means that God deprived certain people their free will. So what would happen to them? Would they go to hell because they didn't believe on faith?

I see your point Shotagon, but there's an error in it. God appeared to these people after they had chosen out of free will to believe in Him. So no, they wouldnt go to Hell because they had previously believed in Him. God appeared to these people after they had already made a choice.

Yes. If you actually read on in Genesis, they CHOSE to sin. You might say the serpent tricked them, but then again, they could have CHOSEN not to.
.

How could Adam and Eve not known they were not being tricked by God and the Snake was really trying to help them out, is it not hugely unfair God has this amazing power and the humans are almost worthless in comparison?


The Muslim religion says one thing Chritianity another, so is choosing the Muslim or Hindu faith allowing yourself to be tricked and a sin?

Yes. If you actually read on in Genesis, they CHOSE to sin. You might say the serpent tricked them, but then again, they could have CHOSEN not to.

And about the Egyptians. God worked through Moses, his follower, trying to convince the Egyptians. The Egyptians, once again, CHOSE not to. In Genesis it specifically states that the Pharoah of that time 'hardened his heart'. And he said to Moses, 'I will not let your people go.

But your point was, that God doesn't appear anymore, because that would make it impossible for people to choose faith.

But:

According to your logic, Adam and Eve clearly had no choice to believe or not to believe, since they were directly created by and in the presence of God.

The Egyptians were witnesses of miracles of God (and were not believing) - and still chose not to believe, which clearly contradicts with your premise that evidence of God would make faith unworkable.

How could Adam and Eve not known they were not being tricked by God and the Snake was really trying to help them out, is it not hugely unfair God has this amazing power and the humans are almost worthless in comparison?

Ok, another error unfortunately. If the serpent helping them out was getting them to disobey God thus bringing upon them sickness, death, pain, and numerous other things that came when us HUMANS screwed up, then you would be right. But if you think that was helping Adam & Eve out, I doubt many people would think of that kind of 'help' as aid.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

Didn't you see South Park the Movie? He's in Hell with Hitler and George Burns. :)

But your point was, that God doesn't appear anymore, because that would make it impossible for people to choose faith.

But:

According to your logic, Adam and Eve clearly had no choice to believe or not to believe, since they were directly created by and in the presence of God.

The Egyptians were witnesses of miracles of God (and were not believing) - and still chose not to believe, which clearly contradicts with your premise that evidence of God would make faith unworkable.

I have to go, but I'll reply tomorrow, sorry. Brb, see you guys.

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

Ok, another error unfortunately. If the serpent helping them out was getting them to disobey God thus bringing upon them sickness, death, pain, and numerous other things that came when us HUMANS screwed up, then you would be right. But if you think that was helping Adam & Eve out, I doubt many people would think of that kind of 'help' as aid.

I guess his/her point was more that Adam and Eve could not know if the snake was helping them or not.

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

its not just christians that you have to ask this question to, it should be the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all believe in the 10 commandments that God gave Moses they just see things in different ways. Judaism=no jesus, Christianity=Jesus and predecessors, Islam=Mohammed and predecessors(including Jesus)

These three religions are all the same in all but the jesus thing, the jews say
no jesus, christans say jesus is so cool and son of god, moslems say jesus was a really nice fellow and a prophet. A lot of historians claim, with right i guess, that mohamed heard of the one god concept from some travelling jesus people and since no one had bothered to spread christianety to the arabs he cind of made a arab version of christianety and then went on a tour to unite the arab tribes, historicly[if we drop the, god told him on a mountain the quoran] then it is a offspring of christianety, in the same way that christianety is on offspring of the jewish religion but was altered to suit the roman empire.

But OT, the moral of the story is, god cares if you were good or bad, he says the only way into the VIP launge is through me, but through him is not going to mosque/synagoge/churche once a week itsz not beliving either, it is acting like a nice person. Their never says in any og the 3 books that the pries or rabbis or imams are the ones who judge IT IS GOD who judges

You actually believe that we are all equal? You think ghandi is as much of a sinner as a killer? What's the point of leading a decent life if all you have to do to be on easy streat once you croak is "accept the gift of forgiveness"? Again, is accepting this gift more important to the powers that be, than actually doing good deeds?

Since we are all human, we sin. It doesn't matter the magnitude of the sin, or rather the type. All it matters is that we sin. Because Ghandi, like all humans, had sinned sometime in his life, he needs forgiveness from the Lord. Whether he goes to hevean or not, is between him and God. Plus, if you really want forgiveness from God for the bad things you've done, you have to be genuinly sorry for what you did. And being sorry for what you've done means that you'll do your utmost best at not doing it again. That's why you shouldn't be on "easy street" unless you're truely sorry.

Its not that unreliable at all, in fact the bible we have now is very close to the earliest found copies, which are quite few as many roman emporers ordered them destroyed, but they were not all lost. The only differences in them are the spelling of a few places, and some gramatical errors, but their message is still the same.

The finding of the dead sea scrolls showed how accurate the jewish scribes were, so we know that the old testament is extremely accurate to what it originally was.

The bible states that it is by faith that you are saved, but faith without work is dead. So you got your faith in Christ? good, you get to heaven. You do nothing about it...well then you'll have to answer to him eventually, and you will not be rewarded as much as you could have been.

Interestingly enough it is explicitly stated in the Quran that Christians and Jews will not be faulted in Heaven for not realizing Muhammad is the most recent prophet of God. Since Islam awknowledges Jesus and Moses with Muhammad as the last step in God's plan for the faith of humanity it makes no difference as long as you are in essence worshipping the one God Allah. Interesting fact about a religion that is seen as trying to forcibly convert the entire world.

My advice to anyone worrying over a matter like this is only this--trust in God. If He's as just as you believe Him to be, then He's going to make the right call, right? That's essentially what God told Job, after all--who are you (as a human, not you specifically) to question what I say is right?[/QUOTE]

This a fair quote. Throughout the bible the same message has been said. John 3:16 ect....
simpler meaning= If you don't have faith in me before your death than into hell you go. (there exceptions such as babies who died still born or died by other means.)

Since we are all human, we sin. It doesn't matter the magnitude of the sin, or rather the type. All it matters is that we sin. Because Ghandi, like all humans, had sinned sometime in his life, he needs forgiveness from the Lord. Whether he goes to hevean or not, is between him and God. Plus, if you really want forgiveness from God for the bad things you've done, you have to be genuinly sorry for what you did. And being sorry for what you've done means that you'll do your utmost best at not doing it again. That's why you shouldn't be on "easy street" unless you're truely sorry.

Probobly the reason why many people don't like the personality of god is because by being sorry you are humbling yourself to him which seems stupid to some but to beleivers it is a very wise and good thing to do. Most people will hust insult god and walk away.

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but you guys do know that Ghandi was a RACIST, right?

You people really need to check into who your role models are.

You need to see all the things he said or wrote about Africans being less than human.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Ok, another error unfortunately. If the serpent helping them out was getting them to disobey God thus bringing upon them sickness, death, pain, and numerous other things that came when us HUMANS screwed up, then you would be right. But if you think that was helping Adam & Eve out, I doubt many people would think of that kind of 'help' as aid.
Only, God didn't really have to unleash such sickness, death, pain, and numerous other things upon them for doing something they were purposely kept too ignorant to know better than not to do (considering their "sin" was what imparted the ability to tell the difference between right or wrong/good and evil in the first place).
I guess his/her point was more that Adam and Eve could not know if the snake was helping them or not.
Exactly right.

again it depends on what you believe, I don't think anyone is "good enough" to get into heaven, nobody can work their way in, in the end we are all the same, we are all sinners, nobody is better than anyone else, some of us have accepted the gift of forgivness and others haven't.
What sins did Gandi commit?

What sins did Gandi commit?

Well, the original sin I guess and since he was a Hindu, he probably broke the first commandment.

<snip>
Buddha was agnostic, but was himself turned into a god by his followers.
<snip>
NO!!!
Buddhists do not worship Buddha

Well, you can always argue that the Bible is written by men. It may contain words of God, but maybe not everything is recorded adequately. From that point of view, you can say that not everything is like God meant it or wanted it.
At which point you have to wonder which ones are the words of man and which the word of god.
Also, If "god" is omniscient, and/or omnipotent, how is it that these theoretical errors occured?

At which point you have to winder which ones are the words of man and which the word of god.
Also, If "god" is omniscient, and/or omnipotent, how is it that these theoretical errors occured?

If he didn't write it nor directly inspired the ones who wrote it, then he wouldn't be responsible for those errors.

A better question would be: why did he not care about it?

That could somehow be reasoned with the errors being results of sin and free will and stuff.

Yes. If you actually read on in Genesis, they CHOSE to sin. You might say the serpent tricked them, but then again, they could have CHOSEN not to.<snip>
But they didn't have any choice about believing in god, because he showed himself to them, therefore since they lacked free-will (didn't have faith) Adam and Eve are in hell.

But they didn't have any choice about believing in god, because he showed himself to them, therefore since they lacked free-will (didn't have faith) Adam and Eve are in hell.You're saying that since they knew God existed, and still denied that he knew better (i.e., didn't listen to him), they went to hell? Fun! That does seem to be the case, doesn't it?

I am not a "Hundu" but I do think that Jesus was an exemplary bhakthi yogi and he would most certainly be a liberated soul and not bound by the cycle of karma and reincarnation.
Isn't that Buddism? How Budda got put out of the cycle because he found inner meaning

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but you guys do know that Ghandi was a RACIST, right?

You people really need to check into who your role models are.

You need to see all the things he said or wrote about Africans being less than human.

Don't believe me? Look it up.
Doesn't detract from all the good things he did, he is still an exemplory role-model, just filter out the racist part

You're saying that since they knew God existed, and still denied that he knew better (i.e., didn't listen to him), they went to hell? Fun! That does seem to be the case, doesn't it?
No, what I'm saying is that according to some christians you need to have faith in god to enter heaven, and you cannot have faith if you have direct knowledge, so since Adam & Eve had direct knowledge of god, thusly not having 'faith' in him, they are in hell.

Although your response does bring up the question of why god set them up to fail, he's omniscient, so therefore he knew that the serpent would try to trick Adam & Eve, and he didn't prevent it. Thusly proving that he wanted them to fail.

What sins did Gandi commit?
I am not sure, I wasn't sneaking around following him. Everyone has sinned, I truly believe that, I am not able to give a specific list of sins that someone has commited though, I am not God, I am just Smunkee.

I am not even sure if I can give a complete list of all the sins I have commited. How the heck would I know about Gandhi's sins?

I am not sure, I wasn't sneaking around following him. Everyone has sinned, I truly believe that, I am not able to give a specific list of sins that someone has commited though, I am not God, I am just Smunkee.

I am not even sure if I can give a complete list of all the sins I have commited. How the heck would I know about Gandhi's sins?
ROFLMAO

I am not even sure if I can give a complete list of all the sins I have commited. How the heck would I know about Gandhi's sins?Don't you just need one?

No, what I'm saying is that according to some christians you need to have faith in god to enter heaven, and you cannot have faith if you have direct knowledge, so since Adam & Eve had direct knowledge of god, thusly not having 'faith' in him, they are in hell.That's irrelevent due to the fact that even though they knew for certain that God exists and wanted things a certain way, they disobeyed. That's a true denial if I've ever seen one. Wouldn't they go to hell on that alone anyway?

Don't you just need one?
yep, only one.

Okay, so I can't tell you of a specific sin that Gandhi commited, I won't even try to guess one because I think it's wrong.

Since you don't believe the same as I do though (I am assuming) then why don't you name a specific sin that I have commited?

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but you guys do know that Ghandi was a RACIST, right?

You people really need to check into who your role models are.

You need to see all the things he said or wrote about Africans being less than human.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

You really need to learn the importance of historical context. Ghandi took no positions that were out of the ordinary for that time and place. It is sad that in this aspect of his life he was not as exemplary as others, but it is far from evidence that Ghandi is not worthy of adulation for other aspects of his life.

By your standard, most of the Presidents of the United States have been RACIST. Look it up.

That's irrelevent due to the fact that even though they knew for certain that God exists and wanted things a certain way, they disobeyed. That's a true denial if I've ever seen one. Wouldn't they go to hell on that alone anyway?
No, because they never existed.

You really need to learn the importance of historical context. Ghandi took no positions that were out of the ordinary for that time and place. It is sad that in this aspect of his life he was not as exemplary as others, but it is far from evidence that Ghandi is not worthy of adulation for other aspects of his life.

By your standard, most of the Presidents of the United States have been RACIST. Look it up.
I don't deny we've had racist Presidents. Never have.

But have you ever heard what Ghandi said about blacks, or are you just kneejerking?

I KNOW the history of U.S. Presidents. Quite a few bigots in there. Do YOU know the history of Ghandi?

Okay, so I can't tell you of a specific sin that Gandhi commited, I won't even try to guess one because I think it's wrong.Ok with me. :)

Since you don't believe the same as I do though (I am assuming) then why don't you name a specific sin that I have commited?I can't. I have no knowledge of you other than what you have posted, and no way to see the motivations behind your actions even if I knew them.

No, because they never existed.
You know, we are arguing from the position that God is real in this thread. :)

Ok with me. :)
thanks.

I can't. I have no knowledge of you other than what you have posted, and no way to see the motivations behind your actions even if I knew them.
and I have no knowledge of Gandhi other than what I have read, so how would I be privy to what sins he commited?

you at least have had a conversation with me, it would seem that you had more of a chance of "knowing my sins" than I would of knowing Gandhi's

of course not. I think I wasn't clear.
Sin causes a need for a savior, if you have not sinned you would not need one, all have sinned though and all are in need of a savior.

I was talking about the people who try to put a scale up and weigh someone's goodness, trying to see if the good outweighs the bad, and think that that really matters, what I was saying is that it doesn't, everyone has some bad and no matter how much bad you have you are imperfect.

Saying that someone who denies Christ can get into heaven doesn't compute for me, since Jesus says that He is the only way into heaven. It's simple either you accept or you don't. You can be ubergood, and still not be good enough, nobody is righteous. Nobody is sinless (except for God) it takes a sinless soul to even be in the presence of God, Jesus died for our sins to give us a pardon, his blood wipes away our sins, it is He who saves us, not ourselves.

That is the part that makes no sense. How does Jesus's blood "wipe away our sins?" Since Jesus is God, that is God killing himself to "save us" from God. :headbang:

You know, we are arguing from the position that God is real in this thread. :)
Yeah, but I'm getting tired, and couldn't think of anything better to say at the time :(

That is the part that makes no sense. How does Jesus's blood "wipe away our sins?" Since Jesus is God, that is God killing himself to "save us" from God. :headbang:
we are not being saved from God, we are being spared the punishment for our actions. and the whole trinity thing is kinda murky waters anyway, I try to understand it, but I have no real life experience with anything like it, so at the end of the day I have to choose to have faith that it works itself out.

As far as how Jesus' blood wipes away our sin, I believe in the theory of substitutionary atonement. He died for us, he took our punishment so that we don't have to.

we are not being saved from God, we are being spared the punishment for our actions. <snip>
But, god is the one who decided that we should be punished, and is the one who, at least indirectly, will be punishing us, so he did die to save us from himself.

we are not being saved from God, we are being spared the punishment for our actions. and the whole trinity thing is kinda murky waters anyway, I try to understand it, but I have no real life experience with anything like it, so at the end of the day I have to choose to have faith that it works itself out.

As far as how Jesus' blood wipes away our sin, I believe in the theory of substitutionary atonement. He died for us, he took our punishment so that we don't have to.

I truly respect you Smunkeeville, but this truly sounds like gibberish.

Spared the punishment from whom? Oh, that would be God. So we are being saved by God from God.

Substitutionary atonement? Does that work in any other context? "Well, class, Timmy is willing to be put in detention, so you can all throw spitwads as much as you like."

Again, he was killed by himself to "save" us from himself. Makes no sense at all.

That's it mate, hit 'im where it hurts!

Wait, not you. I thought I saw a peyote dealer.

I truly respect you Smunkeeville, but this truly sounds like gibberish.

Spared the punishment from whom? Oh, that would be God. So we are being saved by God from God.
I suppose you could look at it that way, and if you do it does sound a little bit crazy.

Substitutionary atonement? Does that work in any other context? "Well, class, Timmy is willing to be put in detention, so you can all throw spitwads as much as you like."
no, it's more like the whole class was breaking numerous rules and the kid in the back who hadn't done anything wrong takes on all the consequences for all the kids that broke the rules. ( a very crude example but it sorta works)

Again, he was killed by himself to "save" us from himself. Makes no sense at all.
yeah, I look at it like he is saving us from the consequences of our decision. I can see what you are saying though.

no, it's more like the whole class was breaking numerous rules and the kid in the back who hadn't done anything wrong takes on all the consequences for all the kids that broke the rules. ( a very crude example but it sorta works)
I must say...I never got that bit, and I've sat through a lot of religion classes in my day.

Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is the guy who hands out punishment. But he doesn't want to, so he comes down to earth, starts getting in trouble with the establishment and is executed.
And that somehow means that he doesn't punish me if I do something wrong? And if he died for all our sins - then why do we bother trying not to commit any, or to say that we're sorry?

Sorry, but I genuinely don't understand it - how can God coming to earth and getting killed make me not get punished for being gay (I'm not, but it's an example of a "sin" in all its ridiculous dimensions)?

Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is the guy who hands out punishment. But he doesn't want to, so he comes down to earth, starts getting in trouble with the establishment and is executed.
And that somehow means that he doesn't punish me if I do something wrong? And if he died for all our sins - then why do we bother trying not to commit any, or to say that we're sorry?
Near as I can figure, the reason to say you're sorry is because if you don't (and if you don't mean it) then you haven't truly accept Jesus, therefore you won't be 'saved' as far as not commiting them (or trying not to) the reason is because god said we shouldn't do this stuff. It's kind of a circular argument, but I guess it works for christians:confused:

Near as I can figure, the reason to say you're sorry is because if you don't (and if you don't mean it) then you haven't truly accept Jesus, therefore you won't be 'saved' as far as not commiting them (or trying not to) the reason is because god said we shouldn't do this stuff. It's kind of a circular argument, but I guess it works for christians:confused:
I explained to my sunday school class when I was teaching (they were in 4th grade)

that it goes
Accept that you are a sinner in need of salvation
Believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose 3 days later
Commit your life to Him by keeping His comandments

you must do all 3, 2 of the 3 is not enough. If you believe but are not commited then what good is your belief? If you accept that you are a sinner and commit your life to following God's comandment, but don't accept Jesus then what's the point? If you believe in Christ and commit your life, but don't believe that you have sinned then why do you feel the need for salvation?

Think of hell not as "eternal damnation, hellfire and brimstone and torture" so much as "seperation from God". Fact is, most of you would choose to be seperated from God rather than accept Him, wouldn't you?

Near as I can figure, the reason to say you're sorry is because if you don't (and if you don't mean it) then you haven't truly accept Jesus, therefore you won't be 'saved' as far as not commiting them (or trying not to) the reason is because god said we shouldn't do this stuff. It's kind of a circular argument, but I guess it works for christians
I explained to my sunday school class when I was teaching (they were in 4th grade)

that it goes
Accept that you are a sinner in need of salvation
Believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose 3 days later
Commit your life to Him by keeping His comandments

you must do all 3, 2 of the 3 is not enough. If you believe but are not commited then what good is your belief? If you accept that you are a sinner and commit your life to following God's comandment, but don't accept Jesus then what's the point? If you believe in Christ and commit your life, but don't believe that you have sinned then why do you feel the need for salvation?
Sounds a lot better when you say it ;)

Sounds a lot better when you say it ;)
that's cuz I am indoctrinated LOL:D

that's cuz I am indoctrinated LOL:D
true :p

Whether or not Gandhi is in Heaven or Hell is not for me to speculate. There is only One fit to judge men, and I'm not the one.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Draw your own conclusions. I think the answer is obvious.

Well, g'night all, I have to work in the AM :sniper:

So, to Christians who believe that faith is necesary for slavation: is Gandhi in hell

nope, at the present moment he is not in hell, for now he is dead, he is to wait to judgment where the dead will be judged.

and no one on earth can say yes or no to wether someone will be in heaven or hell, its not our decision.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

Good to whos standards?

Going back to where we started, nobody ever said my first reaction.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

I have no knowledge of Gandhi other than what I have read, so how would I be privy to what sins he commited?

you at least have had a conversation with me, it would seem that you had more of a chance of "knowing my sins" than I would of knowing Gandhi's

The Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and again, "no one is good, except God." It's a fallacy to say God can't condemn Gandhi because Gandhi was so good. Was Gandhi as good as God? Are you trying to say he was perfect? Anything less than perfect is sin, and seperates us from God.

I can't say "ah, he is in hell" because I don't know ultimately what his status before God was/is. But I know if God condemns him to hell, it is just, and it was because he was imperfect, and not holy, and able to come before God without help.

The Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and again, "no one is good, except God." It's a fallacy to say God can't condemn Gandhi because Gandhi was so good. Was Gandhi as good as God? Are you trying to say he was perfect? Anything less than perfect is sin, and seperates us from God.
you don't have to argue that with me, I think if you go back and read the thred I have said the same thing that you just said at least 3 times, maybe more.

I can't say "ah, he is in hell" because I don't know ultimately what his status before God was/is. But I know if God condemns him to hell, it is just, and it was because he was imperfect, and not holy, and able to come before God without help.
yep, I believe I said that too. (although I worded it slightly differently.)

you don't have to argue that with me, I think if you go back and read the thred I have said the same thing that you just said at least 3 times, maybe more.

yep, I believe I said that too. (although I worded it slightly differently.)

Oh. I guess I missed that. Sorry. I could've sworn I'd actually read the entire thread. I'll go back into hiding and let you take on the wolves. I'd say I was drunk but I haven't had anything to drink, so I guess I'm just tired. That's a good excuse, right?

(anyway, someone out here agrees with you. I just find I have a tendancy to kill threads, so I often just shut up.)

Oh. I guess I missed that. Sorry. I could've sworn I'd actually read the entire thread. I'll go back into hiding and let you take on the wolves. I'd say I was drunk but I haven't had anything to drink, so I guess I'm just tired. That's a good excuse, right?

(anyway, someone out here agrees with you. I just find I have a tendancy to kill threads, so I often just shut up.)
sorry if I was rude, I was just confused I guess, because I thought that I had been very clear (at least most of the time) on this thred, and anyway I am half asleep so.....you know how that goes. ;)

Am I the only one that finds this discussion hilariously theoretical? We're arguing about the entrance admissions to places that to our knowledge, don't exist.

Wrong. We just can't prove they exsist. Doesn't mean they don't. All of the planets have exsisted in our solar system, but there was a long period in history when we, the human race didn't know about their exsistance.

However, the Bible does state, you need both Faith and Deeds to enter Heaven.

Then how can it be claimed by Catholic priests at the least, if not by other members of the clergy that those who accept Jesus on their deathbed are saved? Some of these people did not do any Deeds.

There's a word for things that no one can see, touch, hear, smell, taste or measure in any way: imaginary..

Is it imaginary just beacuse we don't currently have the means to measure it or otherwise sense it? As humans, it wasn't until recently that we discovered the electromagnetic spectrium outside of the visible light range. It was always there, but the means to measure it wasn't.

Then you must believe that Ghandi and anyone else who didn't believe in Jesus is "dead" and thereby in hell.

Not to mention all the poor suckers that came before Jesus Christ even existed.

Don't forget the Catholic concept of Pergatory or the Jewish concept of Sheol(sp?). These are places that are for those not bad enough to actually be admitted to hell but not good enough for heaven either.

Well, that was convincing. Dahmer is in Heaven and Ghandi isn't. I think I'll convert.

That assumes that Dahmer was sincere when he "Converted" or "accepted" Christ. The Bible states that you must believe in your heart and confess with your mouth (paraphrased, but probably very close). Now a verbal saying of it is easily verified, but only God can be the one to know what is on someone's heart (and the person himself of course). Since we won't know till we get to "the other side" where Dahmer went, theoretically he could have gone to hell as well. Technically that possibility exsist for all of us.

The same way, one will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and quote Leviticus, meanwhile forgetting that Leviticus also states that if an unmarried woman gets raped, she should be scourged, but not killed, becuase its probably her fault.

If you are Christian though, you will ignore Leviticus because Paul wrote that the law died with Christ. Therefore all of Leviticus is null and void. Now don't take this to mean that one can ignore civil law ("render unto Ceaser...") or that one can act immorally (what specifically is moral behavior is the topic of many other threads).



So, Smunkeeville, do you have the hubris to declare yourself perfect?
nope, nobody does, least of all me.

Not true...I know a lot of people who have that kind of hubris. No one should, I agree, but many do

But they didn't have any choice about believing in god, because he showed himself to them, therefore since they lacked free-will (didn't have faith) Adam and Eve are in hell.

Ok you all need to get off this kick of Free Will=Faith thing. They are not the same. Inter-linked maybe, related might be better, but defantly not the same.

Doesn't detract from all the good things he did, he is still an exemplory role-model, just filter out the racist part

I'm just glad you weren't one of the ones complaining about people pciking and choosing which scriptures to follow

Although your response does bring up the question of why god set them up to fail, he's omniscient, so therefore he knew that the serpent would try to trick Adam & Eve, and he didn't prevent it. Thusly proving that he wanted them to fail.

False premise. By this logic I can say that any teacher giving an exam or quiz without providing the answer key wants the student to fail. If the tree were to be viewed as a test (maybe of obediance and/or resolve) then the possibility of failure has to be present. Otherwise what is the point?

I must say...I never got that bit, and I've sat through a lot of religion classes in my day.

Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is the guy who hands out punishment. But he doesn't want to, so he comes down to earth, starts getting in trouble with the establishment and is executed.
And that somehow means that he doesn't punish me if I do something wrong? And if he died for all our sins - then why do we bother trying not to commit any, or to say that we're sorry?

Sorry, but I genuinely don't understand it - how can God coming to earth and getting killed make me not get punished for being gay (I'm not, but it's an example of a "sin" in all its ridiculous dimensions)?

This is how I had it explained to me:

Think of a parent and a child (Remember this is an analogy so it won't be a perfect match) The child does something wrong. The parent lays down the punishment. Later the parent realizes that the punishment was rather harsh, but doesn't want to recend the rules that were laid out from before the wrong doing occured. Therefore he determines a course of action that will result in the punishment being lifted.

God laid out the rules when He created the earth and all. Man then disobeyed Him. By the rules he punished those who decended from the original sinner (Don't ask me why...it's one of those "God is so far beyond us we can't understand everything about him" things). An individual's only chance was to go through some rituals on a regular basis to show they were sincere about being with God in Heaven. Evenutally, God realizes that this wasn't a good thing or maybe that the people have outgrown it. But the rules are there; a sacrifice has to be made to attone for sins commited. The original scarifice was to lose the garden of Eden. After that it was an animal sacrifice. So God then determines that a certain type of sacrifice would be the equilivant of every sin ever commited by every person ever born. That sacrifice could only be Himself though. So He puts part of Himself into a human body, has it go through the same temptations as other humans do (cutting the human form off from most of the rest of Him so the human form wouldn't just breeze through) and then had the body terminated and resurrected that portion so that there was a part of Him that could accept people through that path. Now since one of the requirements of the original sacrifices was to truely be repentant of the worng doing, by making people accept and believe in the gift of Jesus' sacrifice it provides a way to ensure that they are repentant. If you had made an animal sacrifice but weren't truely repentant then you didn't really get forgiven. Same here. If you don't truely accept Jesus as the ultimate scarifice then you don't get forgiven. The sacrifice rule is still in place, but there is a way out without having to go through all the mess that came before it.

Like I said this isn't a perfect example but the principle holds.

I personally believe that God is so vast that we can't comprehend everything. I just deal with what I can comprehend and trust in Him to guide me. I also believe that due to this vastness that He has provided us as many paths Home to Him as possible. The only way to God may indeed be through Jesus, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Jesus is the only form that the Son has taken.

1. Gandhi's salvation is not our concern. The focus of faith is not on whether or not this person or that person is entering into heaven. The focus of our faith is on our Creator. That is how Jesus taught us to pray to the Father.

2. We have no way to know whether or not Gandhi had ever either renounced or accepted the diety of Jesus. Only God knows what is in our heart.

3. No person, no matter how good in the eyes of man, is good or worthy in the eyes of God. But since he loves us and created us to love him, he sent his son for our salvation. To wash away our unworthyness and show us a way to be closer to Him.

4. To answer the question directly...Gandhi is where God has sent him and none of anybody's agnostic mumbo-jumbo is going to change that.

I think Gandhi would not want to be in a Christian Heaven even if he believed it existed in the first place. I think Gandhis belief is that he becomes one with God once he reached full self-realization. That sounds so much more beautiful than the Christian Bibles depiction of Heaven and the God he would have to put up with. Personally, If I had his beliefs I wouldn't settle for that afterlife and continue on my current path.

You know, it's this kind of bullshit that turned me off christianity in the first place.

I personally can't fathom a god that would send someone as good as Gandhi to hell simply because he believed in a different set of gods.

This has probably been said before, but I have to say this. Lay the fuck off all of you, now. It's to not get pissed on Nation States, because (as it seems) all the forums end in a debate about religon and creation, I can't believe a fuck like just sat around and thought of a way to try and piss people with a religon off, It may be a valid question but their a million other pro/anti religous forums around here so please we in quire you to shut the fuck up. It'll do a lot of good to discuss something (anything) with arguments will eventually end, this whole discussion that occurs in NS on regular basis is giving me, and others a fuckin' headache. Keep it to yourself.

EDIT:
Sorry to the people not arguing It's that it doesn't stop from being a little pissed at these threads.

^ Thats beens aid a milliion times before... it'll never do any good.

People talk about what they want to talk about despite the objections of the few that want everyone to talk about what they would rather hear.

:D

Wrong. We just can't prove they exsist. Doesn't mean they don't. All of the planets have exsisted in our solar system, but there was a long period in history when we, the human race didn't know about their exsistance.


And, continuing that analogy, this discussion has as much validity as a discussion of the orbit of Pluto would be before the human race knew of its existance.

Sure, someone might have written down the right equation. However, it would almost be certainly be buried amongst hundreds of wrong ones, and nobody would have a way of knowing that it was right - essentially useless.

No,Gandhi is not in hell. He is dead,along with all those who passed away since Jesus` resurrection. He will be raised up to either recieve his reward (if he accepted Christ as his saviour), or face eternal damnation,regardless of how "good" he acted or was. There is only ONE way to heaven, and that is through Christ Jesus; he said that himself. We cannot hold God to our human sense of justice. I know it may sound a little harsh,but it`s from the Scriptures.

I think it was Ghandi that once said:

"I love Christ, but I hate Christians"

... or something to that effect...

If you are Christian though, you will ignore Leviticus because Paul wrote that the law died with Christ. Therefore all of Leviticus is null and void. Now don't take this to mean that one can ignore civil law ("render unto Ceaser...") or that one can act immorally (what specifically is moral behavior is the topic of many other threads).

So, we should specifically ignore the passage concerning men lying with other men to be an "abomination?"

Good.

Im glad you agree.

Paul had the authority given directly to God to dictate part of Gods will was null and void?
Or is it that you are rationalizing the very thing I mentioned earlier about picking and choosing wich scriptures to adhere to, and wich ones you wish to follow, and cite?

Tell me something.
Are you familiar with any of the Gnostic texts, the apocryphal (sp?) books?

If so, and presuming that ones like the Gospel of Mary, or Thomas, or Peter, were actually written by the namesake.
(Surely if you believe Matthew, Mark etc, were, then its not too much of a stretch).

What makes the "Canon" the word and law of God, but not the others?

Whether or not Gandhi is in Heaven or Hell is not for me to speculate. There is only One fit to judge men, and I'm not the one.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Draw your own conclusions. I think the answer is obvious.

Forfania 12:9 "Forfania saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by purchasing vast stores of booze for Him"

Draw your own conclusions I think the answer is obvious..it's a book get over it.

Then how can it be claimed by Catholic priests at the least, if not by other members of the clergy that those who accept Jesus on their deathbed are saved? Some of these people did not do any Deeds.
as far as I understand it, by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are anointed by the spirit and made new. All your sins are washed away and you are made clean in God's eyes. thus you die clean, with your sins forgiven.

now, there are those who will wait for their deathbeds before making such conversion, and others who will say "ok, I will convert when I am dying." those however, will be judged accordingly by God and not by us.