NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry

Matthew 25:34-46
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

Also if you eat shellfish you are a baddie.

Jesters go to hell! Does this apply to clowns as well?

Seeing as 99%+ of modern "christians" openly and proudly violate not only the letter, but the spirit of the Bible - do they really have any intention to go to Heaven, if they even believe in it?

Is the bible a living document? :o

Pretty much everyone is going to hell, havn't you seen South Park - The Movie?

Pretty much everyone is going to hell, havn't you seen South Park - The Movie?

except the Mormons. And Kenny who saved heaven from Hells armies.

You see, that's why you've got things in place to give away all your shit when you die. You're technically no longer a rich man, so you're in the clear. Passing through the eye of a needle is one thing, but passing through a gigantic loophole is pretty damn easy overall...God helps those who help themselves.

You see, that's why you've got things in place to give away all your shit when you die. You're technically no longer a rich man, so you're in the clear. Passing through the eye of a needle is one thing, but passing through a gigantic loophole is pretty damn easy overall...God helps those who help themselves.

Are you joking or is that your serious interpretation of that? If serious then why do many Christians interpret every other verse literally, but can extend this?

Are you joking or is that your serious interpretation of that? If serious then why do many Christians interpret every other verse literally, but can extend this?

In a sense, I'm joking, but there have been plenty of people who have adopted to one extent or another extremely formalistic views of religious dogma as a way of getting around certain...issues...with their behavior. In some cases, it can actually be a legitimate way of stimulating theological discussion, but in others it basically ends up leading to crap like indulgences and sale of papal offices.

I personally believe that it's a verse that needs to be viewed in the context of its time; the economic conditions of that region were such that most wealthy people were hardly hard-working, self-made men. The frontiers of Rome kept a lot of local "flavor" and in the trade-enriched Levant there were a lot of opportunities for corruption to come through. A rich man could have quite often earned his fortune through corruption, graft, exploitation or any other number of dishonest means; the tax collecters and moneychangers of Jesus' invectives were quite often corrupt, bad people that took advantage of the local citizens for personal gain.

I'm surprised you got all of those, but missed the most obvious one:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? And in Thy name cast out devils? And in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.

Have fun with this one.

I'm surprised you got all of those, but missed the most obvious one:
Have fun with this one.

"Have fun with it"? That is a spiritual attitude to have. This could just as much apply to many Christian denominations as well.

John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many others labeled the Papacy as the Antichrist unequivocally (it was even in some official statements in early denominations). Does that mean all Catholics are going to Hell?

So I suppose all the fornicating Christians, and people who break every other verse are alright but because I have a more spiritual belief you say I am going to hell despite loving God and probably praying or contemplating my relationship with God more than many? Why are you not preaching to the fornicators, or to the wealthy who ignore the plight of many?

Also if you eat shellfish you are a baddie.

Polyblend clothes are the Devil's work also.

I personally believe that it's a verse that needs to be viewed in the context of its time


I personally feel that your statement should apply to the entire bible, not just verse by verse.

When a verse is inconvenient or inapplicable for most Christians to follow it needs to be "placed in the context of its time" or some other vague context. When it is applied to nonbelievers, other believers, sinners of other religions or homosexuals and others that verse applies to the others and at best the others are lost, or at worst are burning in an eternal hell that a man named Dante wrote about.

So I suppose all the fornicating Christians, and people who break every other verse are alright but because I have a more spiritual belief you say I am going to hell despite loving God and probably praying or contemplating my relationship with God more than many?
Are you sure you actually have a relationship? In human interactions, it happens sometimes that the two sides disagree on this point.

"Have fun with it"? That is a spiritual attitude to have. This could just as much apply to many Christian denominations as well.

I was just providing it for you to add to your argument. Note in particular the meaning it has when applied to televangelists and those who fake miracles or holy objects.

And, yes, it certainly could apply to a lot of sects of the religion. Whether or not you decide to use it that way is up to you. This is your argument; I'm just handing you another bullet point.

So I suppose all the fornicating Christians, and people who break every other verse are alright but because I have a more spiritual belief you say I am going to hell despite loving God and probably praying or contemplating my relationship with God more than many?

Not at all. I'm just adding another item to your argument for you. Use it as you wish. And, honestly, stop and read the entire thing. Does it actually say that?

Remove the chip from your shoulder. Not everyone here is trying to defend Christianity who posts. And not everyone is attacking your viewpoint.

Not at all. I'm just adding another item to your argument for you. Use it as you wish. And, honestly, stop and read the entire thing. Does it actually say that?

Ahh no it does not. Sorry, it is one of the verses most often used against otherbelievers or those viewed as heretical from the Salvationist Christian standpoint.

Yes it could apply to televangelists or many different kinds of preachers or sects. Though that verse is vague enough that it is hard to know where it is to be applied. It is always applied liberally or to the "Other"

A rich man could have quite often earned his fortune through corruption, graft, exploitation or any other number of dishonest means; the tax collecters and moneychangers of Jesus' invectives were quite often corrupt, bad people that took advantage of the local citizens for personal gain.
But is corruption a necessary condition? It's not in the spirit of Christianity to enrich yourself through running an enterprise or lending with interest either. For a Christian should, if he has two shirts, give one for free to any of his fellow humans who has none. Yet does an entrepreneur or a CEO who pays himself $1,000,000 a year and his workers $25,000 a year follow up on this?

So I'm a little confused. Since when is anyone perfect? And since when are Christians the only ones who are hypocrites sometimes. And you would be surprised how many secular humanists I have meet who care less about humanity than any good practicing narcissist. I love how a few good apples always ruin it for those who are actually trying their best to live their lives according to some higher power.

Now that I got that out. So I know I'm going to regret saying this, but I will any ways. I am a Christian. And you know what, my parents taught me right and wrong. Doesn’t mean I have always followed it. And amazingly enough, both my husband and I we both virgins when we got married, a year ago, and I'm 24. And I'm talking kissing is as far as we got when we were dating. Oh and yes we all have our bad days. But sometimes it is people like you who make me not want to care about other people. Why is that you ask, because you are selfish and self-indulgent. Why would anyone help someone with an attitude like yours? Honestly, would you want to help people whose entire life goal is to bad mouth your chosen life style? But alas WE are called to know better, but I'm sorry since when have you ever done everything your "Father" has told you to do. It is human nature to disobey. I'm not justifying my actions or anyone else’s for that matter.

And I do believe you have missed the whole point on what Christianity is all about. Because you make it sound like deeds are what sends us to heaven or hell. Or have you been listening to late night catholic talk radio? (Sorry Catholics low blow)The Bible says:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."-John 3:16

And it also says:

" Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost"- Titus 3:5

Yes, we are all horrible people, and I do mean everyone. We all have been mean, talked bad about, hated, someone. You are not immune. But according to God we are only required to believe in Jesus Christ in order to go to heaven. That is what the Bible says. However when someone truly believes, the “good” deeds follow, and as long and you put in honest effort to make you self more like Christ, you are good to go. Even if you don't believe in the Bible or God, or you believe in something totally different. You can't deny what is written in that book.

So to go back to your original statement: "Why most Christians will go to hell by their standards" Honestly this is false logic. For these reasons:

1.) In order to be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus Christ and God, and therefore call yourself a Christian.
2.) In order to get to heaven you must believe in Jesus and accept him for what he was: a good and perfect sacrifice, Son of God, and savior of mankind.
3.)So if in fact you call yourself a Christian, and you believe # 1 and #2, then there is no way you are going to hell, because those are the only standards.
4.) If you called yourself a Christian but in fact you are going to hell because you don’t' believe # 1 and #2, then why in the heck are you calling yourself a Christian.

I know my comments will probably open up a can of worms, but I had to give my 2 cents. And honestly many of those “Christians” who are not putting in the effort to being a true believer, I wouldn’t call them Christians. And living in this day and age makes it hard to follow the lifestyle of a Christian. So really, if you meet a Christian and they are rude or whatever, why don’t you stop blaming them for being a “bad” Christian, they could just be having a bad day, or they need some real help in their lives, why don’t you lend a helping hand. Sometimes us Christians need someone like you to gently set us straight or to just to help, or someone to talk to. We have problems too.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."-John 3:16

And it also says:

" Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost"- Titus 3:5

Yes, we are all horrible people, and I do mean everyone. We all have been mean, talked bad about, hated, someone. You are not immune. But according to God we are only required to believe in Jesus Christ in order to go to heaven. That is what the Bible says. However when someone truly believes, the “good” deeds follow, and as long and you put in honest effort to make you self more like Christ, you are good to go. Even if you don't believe in the Bible or God, or you believe in something totally different. You can't deny what is written in that book.

So to go back to your original statement: "Why most Christians will go to hell by their standards" Honestly this is false logic. For these reasons:

1.) In order to be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus Christ and God, and therefore call yourself a Christian.
2.) In order to get to heaven you must believe in Jesus and accept him for what he was: a good and perfect sacrifice, Son of God, and savior of mankind.
3.)So if in fact you call yourself a Christian, and you believe # 1 and #2, then there is no way you are going to hell, because those are the only standards.
4.) If you called yourself a Christian but in fact you are going to hell because you don’t' believe # 1 and #2, then why in the heck are you calling yourself a Christian.
.

Are you serious? Really? This PERFECTLY illustrates the view of salvationist Christians. How can you take two-three verses in the whole Bible and throw the rest out?

So Jesus Christ HIMSELF says that as a rich man it is difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Though I personally believe this is mystical or a state of purity). His Apostles say that fornicators and other sinners will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet your two verses absolve all of it?

Do you even listen to Jesus Christ's message? His entire message is about Unconditional Love, that is the sum of the whole law. That is what illustrates a Christian. That is what he taught. He did not walk around his entire ministry and life saying "I am God in human form, believe in me or go to Hell". How can you look at the Ministry of Jesus Christ, who fed the hungry, helped those who were judged and overlooked by society, spoke against excessive wealth, repeatedly referenced our Father, and said the sum of the law is LOVE absolutely and say that the entire sum of his Ministry is "Believe I am God, and get a first class ticket to Heaven. Do not believe in me, and go to hell to burn eternally. Oh yea, and the love part, you can ignore that and the poor."

Do you read the words of Jesus the Christ, or do you simply listen to what tradition and culture tells you?

I didn't throw the rest out at all. They were just examples for my point. And who says the whole Bible is literal at all. There are some books of history, some of poetry, some of prophecy, etc. You can't all read them the same way and interpret them the same, do you? I mean for goodness sakes you believe the bible from a mystical point of view. Since when to you take everything literally? This just proves you don't know what you are talking about. I think you missed the boat. Your statement:

So Jesus Christ HIMSELF says that as a rich man it is difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It doesn’t seem like you know what that means. Jesus was making an example of rich people. Because the Bible also says that “the love of money, is the root of all evil.” This basically means that for wealthy people it is hard for them to give away their money, or to live without caring about their money. It is hard for them to even think that they would need to believe in Jesus because they have money and that is all they need. Now That is just a general statement and not referring to all wealthy people. And even you said, it was difficult for a rich man to enter heaven, not impossible. When you are reading the Bible you need to keep it into context. You need to read the surrounding verses to get the full idea of what is going on.

Do you even listen to Jesus Christ's message? His entire message is about Unconditional Love, that is the sum of the whole law. That is what illustrates a Christian. That is what he taught. He did not walk around his entire ministry and life saying "I am God in human form, believe in me or go to Hell". How can you look at the Ministry of Jesus Christ, who fed the hungry, helped those who were judged and overlooked by society, spoke against excessive wealth, repeatedly referenced our Father, and said the sum of the law is LOVE absolutely and say that the entire sum of his Ministry is "Believe I am God, and get a first class ticket to Heaven. Do not believe in me, and go to hell to burn eternally. Oh yea, and the love part, you can ignore that and the poor."

Do you read the words of Jesus the Christ, or do you simply listen to what tradition and culture tells you?

Well I do believe you missed the point of what I was talking about. I hadn't even gotten to the message part. I was just comenting on what your first statements said about heaven, and your statement was false logic. Of coarse his message was importiant, very importiant. I'm not deminishing that all. However you are missing the point of why he was even sent to earth. Yes his message gives us a good indication of how we should live our lives. Widows and orphins and the poor are just as importiant, as taking care of our family and our friends. And he didn't go around his whole time on earth talking about the fact that was the son of God. But his message wasn't just about love, tolerence, and the poor. He did say after all : "no one comes to the father except through me." Being the son of god is a major part of who he was, and his mission on earth was also the bring salvation to the world, at everyones free choice. Just because he taught about love and all that, doesn't mean it should deminish his whole reason for comeing to earth. We don't celebrate Easter for nothing. (well not the easter with the bunnies and eggs, lol)

I would suggest that the OP betrays a degree of ignorance in the Christian theology regarding sin and salvation.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. emphasis added, link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=3)

The point here is that salvation is impossible through human action alone. The crux of Christianity is that God knows that man is incapable of perfection, and therefore offered an avenue by which the imperfections of humanity could be shouldered by one who embodied perfection.

Eluneyasa did make an excellent point regarding the passage about the fruits of the spirit and false prophets. Not all who claim the title of "Christian" follow the teachings of Christ, and you shouldn't mistake the one for the other.

My apologies if I'm a bit incoherent - It's 2:43 AM. Good night.

...

I do not personally believe all that Paul wrote or abstract theology. It is well known in Biblical history he disagreed with various other Apostles and has questionable character. Paul was not the Word speaking. Jesus was. I believe exclusively what Jesus said himself.

For people who call themselves Christians they follow less the words of Jesus, and more the words of second and third parties.

I believe in what Jesus Christ said, and believe it was a beautiful message. Love is the sum and whole of the Law, the mark of a true Christian, and some can be in the spirit of Love and be closer than those who claim to be Christians by salvation alone. I do believe in the death and resurrection though.

I do not take the Apostles or any others on the same level as Jesus Christ. What Jesus said himself as the Word is truth, all else is commentary.

nor foolish talking, nor jesting

And what tiny scraps of respect I had from the Bible just disintegrated.

I do not personally believe all that Paul wrote or abstract theology. It is well known in Biblical history he disagreed with various other Apostles and has questionable character. Paul was not the Word speaking. Jesus was. I believe exclusively what Jesus said himself.

For people who call themselves Christians they follow less the words of Jesus, and more the words of second and third parties.

Now I agree with you on this. To many people have almost idolized his Apostles, when it is what Jesus did and who he was that is more importiant. Which is why I have so many issues with the Catholic church and the pope.

And what tiny scraps of respect I had from the Bible just disintegrated.

Well that was Paul again. The Apostle Paul is characterized as the strictest of the Apostles and the biggest proponent of "only wayness". It is even stated in the Bible he disagreed with some of the other apostles.

The quote from just the Wiki on Paul says it all from Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on St. Paul. "Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author." " Paul declared that faith in Christ made the Torah unnecessary for salvation, exalted the Christian church as the body of Christ, and depicted the world outside the Church as under judgment. Augustine's foundational work on the gospel as a gift (grace), on morality as life in the Spirit, on predestination, and on original sin all derives from Paul, especially Romans."

Maybe modern Christians should be called Paulinians I think.

Alright, so I'm going to toss my two cents in, after four years at a Catholic school. (I started as atheist.) My main reason of thinking that most are going to Hell, is simply this: "I am a good person because God wills it of me." or "[...] because I can get into Heaven." or some form there of. No, I don't say all, because stats would show that at least a handful are good to be good. The rest are being selfish in an unselfish way. I also find it easier to believe in the Old Testament than the New. It's kinda hard to get people to follow your religion if you preach fire and brimstone with every little misstep. It all kinda bothers me with it's sugar-coated, goody-two-shoes mentality, and such a small portion of actual followers.

But as for my personal stance after the years, I'm an apathetic, seven daily sins, world-domination via Orwellian Utopia plotting, agnostic. Leaning to Catholicism on what's all up there. I also talk to the moon. I also say that we let people believe what they want, preach none of it, and do good things for one-another.

Jesters go to hell! Does this apply to clowns as well?

No. Paul said that, not Jesus. I've already explained what a dickhead Paul was. *nod*

I am just trying on this Easter Sunday of the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to remember the TRUE teachings of Jesus the Christ of Love as his life does deserve to be celebrated. It was a beautiful, loving life with some beautiful examples and teachings that the modern Christians/Paulinians do not hold as high as they should.

Well that was Paul again. The Apostle Paul is characterized as the strictest of the Apostles and the biggest proponent of "only wayness". It is even stated in the Bible he disagreed with some of the other apostles.

Is he not the fellow who demanded men cut their hair short? I suppose he forgot Jesus had long hair. What Paul did was separate Christianity from Judaism, and, despite his rather uptight attitude, he deserves credit for the making the religion spread.

No. Paul said that, not Jesus. I've already explained what a dickhead Paul was. *nod*

Your avatar looks like something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Your avatar looks like something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not. IIRK.

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

thats why there is confession/penitence

if you fall God forgives you...you try your hardest but if you sin you go repent and you're good

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

None that I know. We all fall short of the glory of God. There are things you can do to live a better life. This is where forgiveness comes in. What actually is repenting? This is my question? We think we may know but do we really?


Fornication = Get married
Adultery = Stay married and devote yourself to one partner
Theft = Don't steal, many of us are okay on this one
Covetous = Be happy with what you have
Drunkards = Drink in moderation
Revilers = I had to look this one up, verbal abuse, keep it to yourself or better still love your neighbor
Idolatry = Worship the one true God

effeminate = This one is a tough one, I am not sure what the solution is.


Some are harder to remove from your life than others. We need to ask for forgiveness.

Non-Christian here.

Okay, let me see if I understand this: The OP is upset because some Christians are hypocrites?

Okay, yes, hypocrisy can be upsetting, that's true.

But do you think hypocrisy is especially a Christian thing (because it isn't), or are you just harping on Christian hypocrites because it happens to be a Christian holiday today?

None that I know. We all fall short of the glory of God. There are things you can do to live a better life. This is where forgiveness comes in. What actually is repenting? This is my question? We think we may know but do we really?


Fornication = Get married
Adultery = Stay married and devote yourself to one partner
Theft = Don't steal, many of us are okay on this one
Covetous = Be happy with what you have
Drunkards = Drink in moderation
Revilers = I had to look this one up, verbal abuse, keep it to yourself or better still love your neighbor
Idolatry = Worship the one true God

effeminate = This one is a tough one, I am not sure what the solution is.


Some are harder to remove from your life than others. We need to ask for forgiveness.

We cannot jest?

effeminate = This one is a tough one, I am not sure what the solution is.

Maybe if you followed up on the rules against being judgmental, that one would solve itself.

Easter is a fertility holiday stolen from pagans, thus the egg & rabbit symbolism, & that is also why it is in the spring time & where its name comes from.

anyway

Jesus was a good-guy, he's up there with Buddha on the good-guy-ometer. The Bible is a fascinating book & has some good stories & lessons in it, but so are & so do almost all religious handbooks. What else they all have in common is that they were written by humans, not God(s), & humans are imperfect, therefore it follows that all these books are imperfect.

The point is live your life as best you can & try not to crap on others & help out people when you can & if there is an afterlife & God(s) then the powers that be if there are any will sort everything out. If there is no afterlife &/or God(s) then what good is wasting your only life on arguing about dogma, when you could be doing something more productive & hopefully better for your fellow man?

I slip up a lot, but I give it my all. All any of us can do when we unintentionally slip up is to pray for forgiveness and to try to learn from that mistake. Not a one of us is perfect, not even (especially not) me.

Is the bible a living document? :o

In my opinion, that's one of the problem with The Bible, is that it's written in a way that if 10 people look at a single verse, then you'll get 10 different interpretation.

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

Jesus also said "Be perfect, as your father in Heaven is perfect" And I believe there is the bit that says "Be holy for I am Holy". By those standards no one is getting into heaven. But here is the key!!!! Jesus. God knew that on our own merits we cannot get into heaven, but only by the help of Christ. He intercedes when we can't be perfect. Now, when you get into the books of the NT, where Paul is talking, you have to realize that he is giving his readers advice as how to live, many times, counter cultural to the pagan culture around them. The idea is that you have to be perfect, but your heart needs to be in a position that desires to have that perfect life, which ultimately leads you away from sin and worldly things. I know since I have been a follower I have still done some bad things, BUT i do them far less, and am far more sad about it when I do it. I don't want to do anything to disappoint my Father in Heaven.

Just like to point out for all the people talking about the rich. In western civilizations even the poorest man is richer than the people living in Africa, China etc. Even the people (such as myself) who consider themselves middle class don't realize that they are richer than the majority of the world.

Your avatar looks like something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

It's the Pie of Sauron. :)

It's the Pie of Sauron. :)

Good choice on the new avatar. :)

Non-Christian here.

Okay, let me see if I understand this: The OP is upset because some Christians are hypocrites?

Okay, yes, hypocrisy can be upsetting, that's true.

But do you think hypocrisy is especially a Christian thing (because it isn't), or are you just harping on Christian hypocrites because it happens to be a Christian holiday today?

Exactly the same situation for me after I read the OP (non-christian as well here).

Do you even listen to Jesus Christ's message

No. Never. It's all lies. It suited us to believe all that hokey 2000 years ago but it's all a bit obsolete now. Has anyone ever noticed that throughout the bible there is loads of new stuff being added all through time, even after Jesus there was several new chapters added over the next couple of hundred years. And then they stopped writing. The bible, and therefore any derivative religions have become completely stagnant. Spiritual messages need to be continually updated to be relevant today. Any bible bashers are just clinging onto old fashioned views that are slowly (eventually) becoming less and less popular.

The same goes for all religions. Hinduism, Jewism, Muslims, Humanism, etc.

No. Never. It's all lies. It suited us to believe all that hokey 2000 years ago but it's all a bit obsolete now. Has anyone ever noticed that throughout the bible there is loads of new stuff being added all through time, even after Jesus there was several new chapters added over the next couple of hundred years. And then they stopped writing. The bible, and therefore any derivative religions have become completely stagnant. Spiritual messages need to be continually updated to be relevant today. Any bible bashers are just clinging onto old fashioned views that are slowly (eventually) becoming less and less popular.

Um...

All of the New Testament was written after Jesus, and the books of the current Bible were compiled a LOOOONG time after Jesus.

If your measure of freshness is newness, how do you justify saying that all Bible-derivative religions are stagnant because they rely on the Bible? Aren't they newer than the older ones, and therefore, according to you fresher, i.e. less stagnant?

The same goes for all religions. Hinduism, Jewism, Muslims, Humanism, etc.
There is no religion called "Jewism." The name of the religion followed by Jews is Judaism.

There is no religion called "Muslims." Muslims is the plural word for followers of the religion called Islam.

As far as I know, Hinduism adds new stuff all the time, so again by your measure, Hinduism is not stagnant.

Finally, what about religions that never codify anything and regularly replace their old stuff with new stuff, such as Japanese Shintoism (they go so far as to replace the Grand Temple at Ise every couple of decades with a whole new building, and they have no written liturgy or canon)?

And what about new religions? How fresh and therefore not "hokey" are they?

By the way, "hokey" is an adjective, not a noun. I think you wanted to say "hokum."

I am just trying on this Easter Sunday of the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to remember the TRUE teachings of Jesus the Christ of Love as his life does deserve to be celebrated. It was a beautiful, loving life with some beautiful examples and teachings that the modern Christians/Paulinians do not hold as high as they should.
Have you considered the THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS? (http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Beatitudes.html)

Um...

All of the New Testament was written after Jesus, and the books of the current Bible were compiled a LOOOONG time after Jesus.

If your measure of freshness is newness, how do you justify saying that all Bible-derivative religions are stagnant because they rely on the Bible? Aren't they newer than the older ones, and therefore, according to you fresher, i.e. less stagnant?

There is no religion called "Jewism." The name of the religion followed by Jews is Judaism.

There is no religion called "Muslims." Muslims is the plural word for followers of the religion called Islam.

As far as I know, Hinduism adds new stuff all the time, so again by your measure, Hinduism is not stagnant.

Finally, what about religions that never codify anything and regularly replace their old stuff with new stuff, such as Japanese Shintoism (they go so far as to replace the Grand Temple at Ise every couple of decades with a whole new building, and they have no written liturgy or canon)?

And what about new religions? How fresh and therefore not "hokey" are they?

By the way, "hokey" is an adjective, not a noun. I think you wanted to say "hokum."

Perhaps what I meant to say is that religion in general and as an idea is a bit stagnant and old fashioned. You can twist it any (semi) modern way you want but you are still trying to revert to the kind of spirituality that only really existed in the past. Religion served us well for some time, now it's time to find something else to occupy our Sunday mornings with, like dying with a hangover for example.

Seriously though, I'm no revolutionary new light, so I don't know what could reasonably fill the gap of religion once everyone realises there is no afterlife and no greater power, but you never know.

isnt god's standard more important than what any particular person thinks will get them into heaven?

I honestly hope the OP doesn't think he's better than other Christians.

And also there's this sort of forgiveness of sins thing that lets most people into heaven.

I do find mainstream Christian theology abhorrent (the idea that everybody who disagrees with you will be tortured for eternity is a vile theology, I think), but the main problem isn't so much that Christians are hypocrites (though, just like every other group of people out there, most of them are), it's that the Bible is so self-contradictory that you can use it to support pretty much whatever you want.

I do not personally believe all that Paul wrote or abstract theology. It is well known in Biblical history he disagreed with various other Apostles and has questionable character. Paul was not the Word speaking. Jesus was. I believe exclusively what Jesus said himself.

For people who call themselves Christians they follow less the words of Jesus, and more the words of second and third parties.

I believe in what Jesus Christ said, and believe it was a beautiful message. Love is the sum and whole of the Law, the mark of a true Christian, and some can be in the spirit of Love and be closer than those who claim to be Christians by salvation alone. I do believe in the death and resurrection though.

I do not take the Apostles or any others on the same level as Jesus Christ. What Jesus said himself as the Word is truth, all else is commentary.

Well, if you don't believe all that Paul wrote, how come three of your four quotes in the OP were from books that Paul wrote?

Indeed, if we pick up just on what Jesus said in the quotes you gave, all there is is the bit about the rich man. Which is, if you look at the context, saying that you will not get into Heaven unless you put Him first, and that those who are rich find it hard to give up their possessions and wealth to do so.

Unfortunately, this rather destroys most of the point of your rant.

No. Never. It's all lies. It suited us to believe all that hokey 2000 years ago but it's all a bit obsolete now. Has anyone ever noticed that throughout the bible there is loads of new stuff being added all through time, even after Jesus there was several new chapters added over the next couple of hundred years. And then they stopped writing. The bible, and therefore any derivative religions have become completely stagnant. Spiritual messages need to be continually updated to be relevant today. Any bible bashers are just clinging onto old fashioned views that are slowly (eventually) becoming less and less popular.

The same goes for all religions. Hinduism, Jewism, Muslims, Humanism, etc.

Humanism is the belief that our morals should not be based upon religion, and that our ethics must constantly grow to accommodate new information. It is exactly what you are preaching.

Humanism is the belief that our morals should not be based upon religion, and that our ethics must constantly grow to accommodate new information. It is exactly what you are preaching.

Now that was just unkind. Stylish, though.

Now that was just unkind. Stylish, though.

Our world adores assholes with class.

Perhaps what I meant to say is that religion in general and as an idea is a bit stagnant and old fashioned. You can twist it any (semi) modern way you want but you are still trying to revert to the kind of spirituality that only really existed in the past. Religion served us well for some time, now it's time to find something else to occupy our Sunday mornings with, like dying with a hangover for example.
I would argue that the fact that some people experience spirituality through religion today means that such spirituality did not only really exist in the past.

Also, I would be interested to know how you know that the religious spirituality of the past was more real than it is now.

And in what way did religion serve people spiritually that it does not now? I can see you saying religion served people educationally and informatively in a way that has been supplanted by science, but in what way has religion's spiritual function been replaced?

Also, in addition to not knowing the names of religions or the timeline of the development of the Bible, you apparently don't know that not all religions have events scheduled for Sunday mornings. I get to sleep in on Sundays.

Seriously though, I'm no revolutionary new light, so I don't know what could reasonably fill the gap of religion once everyone realises there is no afterlife and no greater power, but you never know.
How do you know there is no afterlife? How do you know there is no "greater power"? Greater than what?

Humanism is the belief that our morals should not be based upon religion, and that our ethics must constantly grow to accommodate new information. It is exactly what you are preaching.
Thank you, I missed that one. I was too distracted by "Jewism."

I do find mainstream Christian theology abhorrent (the idea that everybody who disagrees with you will be tortured for eternity is a vile theology, I think), but the main problem isn't so much that Christians are hypocrites (though, just like every other group of people out there, most of them are), it's that the Bible is so self-contradictory that you can use it to support pretty much whatever you want.

IMO the main problem with Christianity is the whole "God is an allcaring, loving Being that has humanities best interests at heart" idea. When you assume that He is not, The Bible becomes far more logical, internally consistent and better corresponding to reality as we can observe it.

And an awful lot scarier for people who believe God exists.

Thank you, I missed that one. I was too distracted by "Jewism."

It intrigued me, as well. Do you suppose it is anything like "Negroism"?

It intrigued me, as well. Do you suppose it is anything like "Negroism"?

I hope not.

It intrigued me, as well. Do you suppose it is anything like "Negroism"?
I am loathe to speculate on that.

I hope not.

There might be a Jewish sect which believes Obama is the Messiah....

There might be a Jewish sect which believes Obama is the Messiah....

You mean the American news media?
[/rightwingtroll]

You mean the American news media?
[/rightwingtroll]

*nods gravely* The fact that they think he is superior to our great President Bush means they could only think of him as the Messiah. And we know what that means--we know the Prophecy of the anti-Christ.

Does this mean that Jesus went to Hell...he lived and died a jew...not a christian...as did all of his immediate disciples if I am correct...

Does this mean that Jesus went to Hell...he lived and died a jew...not a christian...as did all of his immediate disciples if I am correct...

Yes. He strongly supported the Jewish law, claimed he only cared about saving Jews, and told his followers not to preach to Gentiles.

Yes. He strongly supported the Jewish law, He didn't necesarily support it, considering he told the pharisees that they were breaking the people's backs with the law. He said he came to FULFILL it, meaning live perfectly in the site of God and men, as to teach others how to live.


claimed he only cared about saving Jews,

I suppose you forgot about the Great Commission: Matthew 28: (16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. (17) And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. (18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

and told his followers not to preach to Gentiles.

List those verses. I am guessing its going to be :

Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles"

Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"

John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews"

Right??? Those are the only ones in that context. Let me break them down bit by bit. The first, if you read in the context of the chapter, which is important when reading the Bible, will let you know that Jesus told the Disciples not to go to the Gentiles for a specific mission, in that specific time. He did NOT say "Never go to the Gentiles". He was directing them, at the beginning of their ministries, to go to the Jews first. This is sort of a revival meeting. At a revival, those that are of God's ilk come back to Him in fervor, after falling away or getting stagnant in faith. Essentially, this is what happened to the Jews. They got stagnant in faith. So Jesus told the disciples to go to those that knew about the True God first, and revive them with the Gospel. And then again, we find out that He directs them to preach to ALL of the nations before He ascends.

Now, in Matthew 15: 24, and surrounding verses (again context is everything!!!) we learn about how Jesus was telling a woman that she couldn't have salvation and healing for her daughter, as she was a Samaritan..Or do we?? It, like many other things Jesus said and did, seems to be a test of the woman's faith. She comes to Him, declaring Him to be messiah, showing an initial faith. But he denies her, and she tries again. And he uses cultural language to insult her (jews and samaritans hated each other). Why? Because this was how the disciples surely felt towards her. So he was kind of making sure they were paying attention. Finally, she asks one more time, even in spite of the insults and likely crushed spirit, and Jesus tells her that she has great faith, and that it would be done. Just reading the passage alone lets us know that it was a test of her faith, and more than likely put to shame the racist feelings of the disciples.

John 4:22 is an easy one actually, to explain, as it deals with Jesus telling a woman that its through the Jews that salvation has come. He, being a Jew and salvation, was telling her only what was true. It's not saying that its only for the Jews, or what not.

So please, if you have anything else, let me know. I'll answer it for you. :)

He didn't necesarily support it, considering he told the pharisees that they were breaking the people's backs with the law. He said he came to FULFILL it, meaning live perfectly in the site of God and men, as to teach others how to live.

He said the Jewish Law is universal and unchanging. Do you require passages?


So please, if you have anything else, let me know. I'll answer it for you. :)

My questions:

It seems Christians call some of Jesus' teachings universal, but claim others are "in the context of the time"--is the Bible 100% God's word, to be followed to the letter, or not?

Paul contradicts Christ on some points (such as long hair); why is Paul followed rather than Christ?

He said the Jewish Law is universal and unchanging. Do you require passages?

Please.



My questions:

It seems Christians call some of Jesus' teachings universal, but claim others are "in the context of the time"--is the Bible 100% God's word, to be followed to the letter, or not? Can I not make a statement that reflects upon life, in the culture I was raise in, and then later on make another statement that can be used at any point in time? For example, I could say "Go to the ghettos and help the urban kids out." That is cultural. People 1000 years ago would not understand that as I would, nor would people 1000 years from now. And then I can make another statement, being more general and say "Help the poor and needy". People in all ages and times can understand that. The beauty is that we know what the culture of 1st century judea was like. We can understand what he was saying to the people in that day and time, and at the same time have a message that is universal. The Bible takes a bit of effort to read correctly, which is why its been twisted over the years. People cherry pick verses, and use it for means other than what was intended.



Paul contradicts Christ on some points (such as long hair); why is Paul followed rather than Christ?
What did Christ say about long hair? I don't think it was something essential for him to preach about? Where as Paul, was teaching people who were already Christian on how to live counter culturally.

So we have it like this:

Jesus taught how to be "saved".
Paul teaches the saved how to live more Godlike.
And overall, the saved have the Holy Spirit to help teach regarding all other manners. There is NO discrepancy between Paul and Christ. Please post verses, but only after you have read the context in which they are written. Read the Bible inductively first, and then do your interpretation secondly. :)

Because Christianity demands perfection. And we're mere humans, perfection is, sadly, unattainable. For this, we're going to hell.

Please.

Matthew 5: 18.


Can I not make a statement that reflects upon life, in the culture I was raise in, and then later on make another statement that can be used at any point in time? For example, I could say "Go to the ghettos and help the urban kids out." That is cultural. People 1000 years ago would not understand that as I would, nor would people 1000 years from now. And then I can make another statement, being more general and say "Help the poor and needy". People in all ages and times can understand that. The beauty is that we know what the culture of 1st century judea was like. We can understand what he was saying to the people in that day and time, and at the same time have a message that is universal. The Bible takes a bit of effort to read correctly, which is why its been twisted over the years. People cherry pick verses, and use it for means other than what was intended.

Very well, then. I propose that the Bible has nothing against homosexual marriage, since the words against it were merely to discourage Jews from having relations which would not produce offspring, when the tribe was in grave danger of dying-out.

What did Christ say about long hair? I don't think it was something essential for him to preach about? Where as Paul, was teaching people who were already Christian on how to live counter culturally.

Jesus had long hair. Paul condemned long hair.

So we have it like this:

Jesus taught how to be "saved".
Paul teaches the saved how to live more Godlike.
And overall, the saved have the Holy Spirit to help teach regarding all other manners. There is NO discrepancy between Paul and Christ. Please post verses, but only after you have read the context in which they are written. Read the Bible inductively first, and then do your interpretation secondly. :)

Paul basically dumped Christ's "Jewish-ness" (circumcision, anyone?), so he could convert non-Jews.

We cannot jest?

When you hear that "jest" stuff think blasphemy. They have the same policy for Mockers. Don't make fun of Christ or his followers.


Does that mean we can not make jokes about people? No, come on, that is going Off-Roading, that is taking things too far. There are plenty of place where you can do this but then it becomes a personal choice.


If you think it is a sin to eat food offered to Idols, don't eat it. Just don't cause your brother or sister to fall. If you feel that circumcision will get you closer to God then by all means do so however it is not required anymore. Do not look down on your brother who is not.

If you think it is a sin to eat meat on Friday then by all means stick to fish, have a salad, noodles whatever. It not worth getting worked up by what a Brother or Sister eats and what he/she should or should not eat.

Maybe if you followed up on the rules against being judgmental, that one would solve itself.

Thanks I am trying. I will confine myself to when I am asked "If it is a sin". I will try not to post too much on this subject. The only thing I want is to not water down the message. I think you know what I am talking about.

Matthew 5: 18. Again, cherry picking verses. But very well. He says that the law will not be passed away until it is entirely fulfilled. He said he came to fulfill the law. And he did so to the tee, so to speak.


Very well, then. I propose that the Bible has nothing against homosexual marriage, since the words against it were merely to discourage Jews from having relations which would not produce offspring, when the tribe was in grave danger of dying-out.

That could be the case. Or God could have been against it because it went against the way that he made things to be. I honestly think it was because that so many people had to do homosexuality outside of marriage, and that was fornication. It was also a common practice among "pagan" cultures, again, something God wanted His people to stray away from.




Jesus had long hair. Paul condemned long hair. Your proof of this comes from wear? I recall no physical description of Christ other than that he was not the most attractive of people, appearing as a normal person. I'm sorry, but medieval paintings have no bearing on what Jesus looks like. As far as long hair, read this:

http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsSite/otherareas/longhair.htm
http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2006-02-18



Paul basically dumped Christ's "Jewish-ness" (circumcision, anyone?), so he could convert non-Jews.
He quite often talked about his own jewishness. However, he was against what the Jews were at that time. They were caught up in traditions, rather than faith. They cared more about physical circumcision, and less about the spiritual covenant that is represented.

isnt god's standard more important than what any particular person thinks will get them into heaven?

^this^

It is not up to us to judge.

Again, cherry picking verses. But very well. He says that the law will not be passed away until it is entirely fulfilled. He said he came to fulfill the law. And he did so to the tee, so to speak.

"Fulfill it"? As in, he is the Messiah. Not as in: "The Law no longer needs to be followed". The Law supposedly becomes abrogated by his second coming, not his first.


That could be the case. Or God could have been against it because it went against the way that he made things to be. I honestly think it was because that so many people had to do homosexuality outside of marriage, and that was fornication. It was also a common practice among "pagan" cultures, again, something God wanted His people to stray away from.

So homosexuality is no longer a sin?

Your proof of this comes from wear? I recall no physical description of Christ other than that he was not the most attractive of people, appearing as a normal person. I'm sorry, but medieval paintings have no bearing on what Jesus looks like.

Do you not believe he was a practicing Jew?

As far as long hair, read this:

http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsSite/otherareas/longhair.htm
http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2006-02-18

So Paul contradicts the Old Testament and Jewish Law.

He quite often talked about his own jewishness. However, he was against what the Jews were at that time. They were caught up in traditions, rather than faith. They cared more about physical circumcision, and less about the spiritual covenant that is represented.

Circumcision is part of "The Law"; Paul disregards this entirely.

^this^

It is not up to us to judge.

Yet so many of you are casting "first stones" all over the place. :(

Yet so many of you are casting "first stones" all over the place. :(

We do and it is a failing. It is difficult to admonish sinners and not be judgmental. Generally we say hate the sin but love the sinner.

We do and it is a failing. It is difficult to admonish sinners and not be judgmental. Generally we say hate the sin but love the sinner.

The problem is that many Christians lose sight of this, TB.

We do and it is a failing. It is difficult to admonish sinners and not be judgmental. Generally we say hate the sin but love the sinner.

You all love us, but we are still going to Hell. :(

Every belief system has a habit of judging the sinner, theist or otherwise. Just look at communism, environmentalism, and countless other belief systems besides.

The difference with Christianity is that we see this as a problem.

The problem is that many Christians lose sight of this, TB.

You are absolutely correct, we do. We fall in this trap so many time it is not funny. It is really hard to avoid. How does one preach the law but not be judgmental?

IMO the main problem with Christianity is the whole "God is an allcaring, loving Being that has humanities best interests at heart" idea. When you assume that He is not, The Bible becomes far more logical, internally consistent and better corresponding to reality as we can observe it.
Probably, but there's really no reason the Bible should be internally consistent. It's a collection of different writings by different people over a thousand years. Many don't even write in the same language. It's as if you took the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Civil Rights Act of 1964 and expected a coherent whole.

Also, I think you mean "...loving Being that has humanity's best interests..." While the world certainly be interesting with a God who loved English literature and Classics more than anything else, it's not really the Christian model.

You are absolutely correct, we do. We fall in this trap so many time it is not funny. It is really hard to avoid. How does one preach the law but not be judgmental?

I don't think humans have an answer to that. It's unfortunate, really, because when one studies the teachings of Jesus with no religious zeal in mind, one sees such beautiful things, one understands that there's, indeed, the potential for real goodness. But we humans deconstruct, and it's so sad to see these teachings deconstructed and turned into something they're not, or something Jesus never intended.

Thanks I am trying. I will confine myself to when I am asked "If it is a sin". I will try not to post too much on this subject. The only thing I want is to not water down the message. I think you know what I am talking about.
Sorry, the "you" in my post was the rhetorical "you", used in the plural and indicating Christians in general, not you specifically as an individual. I'm sorry for sounding like I was picking on you. I did not mean to.

What I meant was that if some Christians strove to be less judgmental, they might spend less time judging whether other people were fitting into prescribed gender roles perfectly enough, and then whether someone was being "effeminate" or not would be less of an issue because they would be less likely to think of someone as being "effeminate."

That could be the case. Or God could have been against it because it went against the way that he made things to be. I honestly think it was because that so many people had to do homosexuality outside of marriage, and that was fornication. It was also a common practice among "pagan" cultures, again, something God wanted His people to stray away from.

See the bolded phrase above:

Ah...um... no.

1) On what do you base this notion that "so many" people "had to" do homosexuality under any circumstances, in or out of marriage?

2) The word "fornication" does refer to sex outside of marriage but it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Specifically, it implies sex with prostitutes, as it is derived from the Latin "fornix", meaning archway or vault, referring to the galleried streets where brothels were usually located in Roman cities and where street prostitutes plied their trade.

for·ni·ca·tion (fôr'n?-k?'sh?n) Pronunciation Key
n. Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
Word History: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornic?ti?, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornic?r?, "to commit fornication," from which is derived fornic?ti?, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication

You will also note from the quoted definition that the English word fornication first appears in Middle English about 1303, indicating that it probably does not refer to anything that was happening in the ancient world (referring back to your mysterious assertion that in the ancient world, people cheated on their spouses by having gay sex with other people).

You are absolutely correct, we do. We fall in this trap so many time it is not funny. It is really hard to avoid. How does one preach the law but not be judgmental?
Ask St. Francis of Assisi.

I don't think humans have an answer to that. It's unfortunate, really, because when one studies the teachings of Jesus with no religious zeal in mind, one sees such beautiful things, one understands that there's, indeed, the potential for real goodness. But we humans deconstruct, and it's so sad to see these teachings deconstructed and turned into something they're not, or something Jesus never intended.

That is true the Bible can be used for all kind of purposes it was not intended for. We do tend to deconstruct. We need to know how it all works and how it works together. The Bible is very involved and you need to be sure you are understanding it correctly.

You know it like little kids when they find and old motor or appliance. We simple must take it apart to see how it works.

That is true the Bible can be used for all kind of purposes it was not intended for. We do tend to deconstruct. We need to know how it all works and how it works together. The Bible is very involved and you need to be sure you are understanding it correctly.

You know it like little kids when they find and old motor or appliance. We simple must take it apart to see how it works.

I know the Bible is paramount to Christian faith and teachings. I just wouldn't base all of what I want to give and feel on that book alone. I think Christianity is something that must be felt and shown, not only studied and followed to the hilt. I'm not sure we have the capability of understanding the Bible correctly, I don't think we can understand God and Jesus completely. We lack that in our intellects. We can try.

Sorry, the "you" in my post was the rhetorical "you", used in the plural and indicating Christians in general, not you specifically as an individual. I'm sorry for sounding like I was picking on you. I did not mean to.

Thanks i think.


What I meant was that if some Christians strove to be less judgmental, they might spend less time judging whether other people were fitting into prescribed gender roles perfectly enough, and then whether someone was being "effeminate" or not would be less of an issue because they would be less likely to think of someone as being "effeminate."

See this is where we hit the wall you and me. Now excluding what is going on in the courts and rights and all that. I know, I know separation of church and state.

How can we say the gay marriage is okay? You have a point that we should not be judgmental. Alright I will give you that. If they chose to get married outside of the church then I suppose I have no say, fine I accept this. How can we just come along later and say oh well because it wasn't specifically said in the Bible that you could marry another man when you were a man that it was okay. Same goes for women. That does not make sense. It does seem to have a whole policy on homosexuality wouldn't you agree? So why then would gay marriage be allowed if gay was not? I know you are not the spokesperson for the cause but since you are here. I would be interested to hear your thoughts?

Thanks i think.



See this is where we hit the wall you and me. Now excluding what is going on in the courts and rights and all that. I know, I know separation of church and state.

How can we say the gay marriage is okay? You have a point that we should not be judgmental. Alright I will give you that. If they chose to get married outside of the church then I suppose I have no say, fine I accept this. How can we just come along later and say oh well because it wasn't specifically said in the Bible that you could marry another man when you were a man that it was okay. Same goes for women. That does not make sense. It does seem to have a whole policy on homosexuality wouldn't you agree? So why then would gay marriage be allowed if gay was not? I know you are not the spokesperson for the cause but since you are here. I would be interested to hear your thoughts?
We actually hit the wall on a lot more things than this.

And, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure you are hitting the same wall as me in this instance. You were talking about men being effeminate. What does that have to do with gay marriage rights? (Hint: The answer is 'nothing.')

(Hint #2: I'm not going to participate in a threadjack.)

Heaven sounds remarkably like Studio 54

Right a treadjack. Sorry people. Well one reason may be their lifestyles are important at the moment than the afterlife.

It does seem to have a whole policy on homosexuality wouldn't you agree?
I'd say the Bible has a much more significantly anti-heterosexuality stance. The Bible contains a crapton more passages about the evils of hetero activities.

And, frankly, since the Bible says that heterosexuals are supposed to have heterosex only for procreation, but that we're never supposed to be lusty or get off on it, that actually sounds like the Bible is telling everyone to live like closeted homosexuals.

I'd say the Bible has a much more significantly anti-heterosexuality stance. The Bible contains a crapton more passages about the evils of hetero activities.

And, frankly, since the Bible says that heterosexuals are supposed to have heterosex only for procreation, but that we're never supposed to be lusty or get off on it, that actually sounds like the Bible is telling everyone to live like closeted homosexuals.

Except when you are married then it doesn't have a problem with it. If you read Song of Solomon, you get the idea he is pretty much okay with it in certain circumstances. Yes, very much so, fornication and adultery are definitely problems. NT says we are suppose to submit in marriage.

Heaven sounds remarkably like Studio 54

http://media.fukung.net/images/4398/Ha%20Ha%20Internet%20Animated.gif

Right a treadjack. Sorry people. Well one reason may be their lifestyles are important at the moment than the afterlife.

Important to whom?

To them? Obviously, it certainly is.

Important to you? Sorry, but neither you nor any other religious person copping at attitude about gays has ever presented anything even remotely like a valid reason why their lifestyle should be any concern of yours. After years of listening to religious arguments about it, all I can say is you people should learn not to poke your noses in where they don't belong.

And that brings us back to my original remark about Christians striving to be less judgmental.

Except when you are married then it doesn't have a problem with it. If you read Song of Solomon, you get the idea he is pretty much okay with it in certain circumstances. Yes, very much so, fornication and adultery are definitely problems. NT says we are suppose to submit in marriage.

I live with my partenr, out of wedlock. You're basically telling me I'm a sinner, by NT standards. But I submit to him, I respect him, I do everything a wife does. But we're not bound legally or religiously. I follow the precepts, but I am not married. Does that, nevertheless, makes me a sinner? I don't think so. I know married people who betray their spouses and break NT rules, and I wouldn't dare betray my partner.

I live with my partenr, out of wedlock. You're basically telling me I'm a sinner, by NT standards. But I submit to him, I respect him, I do everything a wife does. But we're not bound legally or religiously. I follow the precepts, but I am not married. Does that, nevertheless, makes me a sinner? I don't think so. I know married people who betray their spouses and break NT rules, and I wouldn't dare betray my partner.

I thought your man lived across the Atlantic. :confused:

I thought your man lived across the Atlantic. :confused:

Well, yes. But I'm going to him in a few days.

Well, yes. But I'm going to him in a few days.

Do you live with him part of the year?

So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

I don't really know. I know I can only live my life as best I can. Sure I will stumble from time to time, and I ask Him for forgiveness. But in the end, when I stand before Him for Judgement, I can only rely on the fact that I did my best to live a life the way He wanted me to live it.

Do you live with him part of the year?

You could say that. But my respect of him goes so deep that, even when apart, I do not dare disrespect him.

You could say that. But my respect of him goes so deep that, even when apart, I do not dare disrespect him.

He must be an extremely power individual.

He must be an extremely power individual.

Powerful? Perhaps. But this is not about power, but about honoring your partner.

I live with my partenr, out of wedlock. You're basically telling me I'm a sinner, by NT standards. But I submit to him, I respect him, I do everything a wife does. But we're not bound legally or religiously. I follow the precepts, but I am not married. Does that, nevertheless, makes me a sinner? I don't think so. I know married people who betray their spouses and break NT rules, and I wouldn't dare betray my partner.

whether or not you are sinning, is not for me, or IMHO, anyone else to decide. but between you and whomever you aknowledge as the higher being (if at all).

In other words, if YOU don't believe, honestly believe, you are sinning, then you are not.

Powerful? Perhaps. But this is not about power, but about honoring your partner.

sounds like you are married to him in every way but in name. ;)

Powerful? Perhaps. But this is not about power, but about honoring your partner.

Well, he must be something extraordinary to receive such respect.

Well, he must be something extraordinary to receive such respect.

He is extraordinary in the fact that he's a wonderful human being and respects me.

sounds like you are married to him in every way but in name. ;)

Pretty much. :)

whether or not you are sinning, is not for me, or IMHO, anyone else to decide. but between you and whomever you aknowledge as the higher being (if at all).

In other words, if YOU don't believe, honestly believe, you are sinning, then you are not.

Which is exactly what I believe. I'm not sinning because I respect him. That's all God asks of us to give to our partners. I am doing that.

He is extraordinary in the fact that he's a wonderful human being and respects me.

Not many of those.

Which is exactly what I believe. I'm not sinning because I respect him. That's all God asks of us to give to our partners. I am doing that.

Where does God ask that?

Not many of those.

No, not many of those. But they're there.

Where does God ask that?

Tell me, Parkus, what does one of the 10 commandments says regarding this?

Tell me, Parkus, what does one of the 10 commandments says regarding this?

Committing adultery, and such. But if you believe in those, do you keep the Sabbath holy?

Committing adultery, and such. But if you believe in those, do you keep the Sabbath holy?

I'm not religious. I sometimes, just sometimes attend mass, but not for any particular desire to keep anything holy.

Not many of those.

In your opinion.

I'm not religious. I sometimes, just sometimes attend mass, but not for any particular desire to keep anything holy.

The point is, failure to keep the Sabbath holy is punishable by Hell, like the other Commandments.

In your opinion.

It depends upon how many persons Nanatsu no Tsuki knows.

The point is, failure to keep the Sabbath holy is punishable by Hell, like the other Commandments.

Oh, I have no fear of that. I have come to terms with the fact that, most likely, when I die and go meet the Maker (if there's such a Maker), I will probably be sent to hell afterwards. I harbor no illusions on this, I have chosen to live my life as I see fit, even if it doesn't conform to any Christian standards.

It depends upon how many persons Nanatsu no Tsuki knows.

What does this have to do with Nanatsu? You said "Not many of those." and I said it was in your opinion.

The point is, failure to keep the Sabbath holy is punishable by Hell, like the other Commandments.

ah, but which is the Sabbath? Saturday? or Sunday? :D

What does this have to do with Nanatsu? You said "Not many of those." and I said it was in your opinion.

I think he was just alluding to one of my posts. But yes, this has nothing to do with me per se. This may very well apply to everyone here.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
this, i was told was said because his worldy wealth was an idol to him.

Let me say something before this becomes a 15 pages long discussion. The whole bible should be interpret in the context of its time, and try to understand all of the meanings behind the words, not just in what we like. Also, it should be interpret by each person, in their own forms and views. The end result should be doing God's will and good in general. I am a catholic, but since I don't fully understand the bible, and probably never will, I try to do as much good as possible, and forgive as much as possible. This includes not judging people and trying to cast them into hell because I disagree with them, for all I know they could be right and I could be wrong.

Oh, I have no fear of that. I have come to terms with the fact that, most likely, when I die and go meet the Maker (if there's such a Maker), I will probably be sent to hell afterwards. I harbor no illusions on this, I have chosen to live my life as I see fit, even if it doesn't conform to any Christian standards.

You believe you are going to Hell, eh what?

Phew, it has almost becomes a 15 pages long discussion. LOL! It was 4 pages long when I first begun my response. LOL!!

ah, but which is the Sabbath? Saturday? or Sunday? :D

Saturday, according to the Bible. Friday for Muslims.

What does this have to do with Nanatsu? You said "Not many of those." and I said it was in your opinion.

Persons who respect Nanatsu would have to at least know her.

You believe you are going to Hell, eh what?

Of course I do. I have tattoos, I live out of wedlock, I believe in abortion and I defend gay rights. If I judge myself according to Christian views, I AM going to Hell. Not that I care, tbh, I happen to think that I am a better human being than most Christians claim to be. And understand, I know there are good Christians out there too, people who truly desire to do good, to make a difference. But those are not the norm, not anymore if they ever were.

Of course I do. I have tattoos, I live out of wedlock, I believe in abortion and I defend gay rights. If I judge myself according to Christian views, I AM going to Hell. Not that I care, tbh, I happen to think that I am a better human being than most Christians claim to be. And understand, I know there are good Christians out there too, people who truly desire to do good, to make a difference. But those are not the norm, not anymore if they ever were.

This has nothing to do with your standards, merely your expectations.

"I have come to terms with the fact that, most likely, when I die and go meet the Maker (if there's such a Maker), I will probably be sent to hell afterwards."

Providing there is a God, do you believe he would send you to Hell?

This has nothing anything to do with your standards, merely your expectations.

"I have come to terms with the fact that, most likely, when I die and go meet the Maker (if there's such a Maker), I will probably be sent to hell afterwards."

My expectations? What does the Church says about my conduct? Really?

Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28--"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord"

Living out of wedlock: "You must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. . . . Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more" (Eph. 4:17-19).

Abortion: In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors... I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

Provided there is a God, who knows what He/She'll do.

Even if all that were true, being close to God in these days is impossible.

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV


Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

I am not a Christian but I think that you missed the point entirely. The basic point is that all men are sinners and the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of the gift of the divine absolution of sins.

The rest is just a way to reduce your sin for the glory of God which I am cool with as a Jew because that is pretty much what we are all about although there is also the element of the forgiveness of sins although we believe that Jesus is not necessary for all of that forgiveness business.

You are essentially confused about the minor role played by works in the Christian faith and the huge importance of grace.

Provided there is a God, who knows what He/She'll do.

But you said you came to terms with "the fact". Were you being sarcastic?

Of course I do. I have tattoos, I live out of wedlock, I believe in abortion and I defend gay rights. If I judge myself according to Christian views, I AM going to Hell. Not that I care, tbh, I happen to think that I am a better human being than most Christians claim to be. And understand, I know there are good Christians out there too, people who truly desire to do good, to make a difference. But those are not the norm, not anymore if they ever were.

I never knew that tattoos were some sort of a sin. I like them on girls but on guys I think they are silly unless they are military service tattoos.

But you said you came to terms with "the fact". Were you being sarcastic?

Well, once again, what does Christian doctrine says about my behavior, Parkus?

Humanism is the belief that our morals should not be based upon religion, and that our ethics must constantly grow to accommodate new information. It is exactly what you are preaching.

I'm not a humanist. I've done one of those religion quizes and apparently my beliefs match those of Humanism very closely, but I wouldn't call myself a Humanist. I've never attended any of their meetings. I've never read anything about them, or any of their writings. I've no interest to become a humanist. As I said before I belief that any form of religion is pointless.

I know there is no such things as an afterlife for two reasons. 1. There is no such thing as a soul. Consciousness is just your senses and your ability to interpret them using electrical connections in your brain. 2. Once you die after 3 minutes (could be 8, I'm not sure), you're brain suffers irreperable damage, and those electrical connections become severed. How do you propose that you would experience an afterlife once you're ability to even think basic thoughts is over?

I don't know that there is no God or other great power, but as a concept it just seems ridiculous and even on the offchance that there is one, I doubt he gives much of a shit whether we believe in him or not. After, he is omnicesent, he probably just watches aliens have sex all day.

I think the tatoo law has something to do with what they meant during those times, or their meaning behind them. I mean, what if you tatoo a verse from the bible? Anyway, I have no tatoos, but I really wanted to get one with a lot of meaning behind it, don't know what yet. However hearing all this about tatoos I really don't know. I guess this takes me back to interpreting the bible as an individual. Think about it, you can explain something to me but I will still interpret it in my own way. Give five people a book, the same book to read, and they all will get a different interpretation from it.

I'm not a humanist. I've done one of those religion quizes and apparently my beliefs match those of Humanism very closely, but I wouldn't call myself a Humanist. I've never attended any of their meetings. I've never read anything about them, or any of their writings. I've no interest to become a humanist. As I said before I belief that any form of religion is pointless.

I know there is no such things as an afterlife for two reasons. 1. There is no such thing as a soul. Consciousness is just your senses and your ability to interpret them using electrical connections in your brain. 2. Once you die after 3 minutes (could be 8, I'm not sure), you're brain suffers irreperable damage, and those electrical connections become severed. How do you propose that you would experience an afterlife once you're ability to even think basic thoughts is over?

I don't know that there is no God or other great power, but as a concept it just seems ridiculous and even on the offchance that there is one, I doubt he gives much of a shit whether we believe in him or not. After, he is omnicesent, he probably just watches aliens have sex all day.

Do you understand that calling Humanism a religion is like calling atheism a religion?

Well, once again, what does Christian doctrine says about my behavior, Parkus?

Do you consider Christian doctrine a "fact"?

Do you understand that calling Humanism a religion is like calling atheism a religion?
I don't know, there's certain aspects, and certain practitioners, of humanism that treat it like a religion.

Certainly not all, but some.

Do you consider Christian doctrine a "fact"?

I don't consider it anything because I don't ascribe to it's preachings. I do respect it, but I don't think anything about it. I, however, am not blind to it. I know that, if one is to follow Chriastian precepts, the behavior I have adopted, in more than one occasion, is deemed sinful. If there is a God, and if He actually dictated these precepts to the 'prophets', then I am, by all means a sinner, perhaps unworthy of forgiveness and therefore a candidate to be sent to Hell.

It is counted as religion in those big lists of religions things.

Also I'm pretty sure that when we did religion in school we studied Humanism. Though I did spend most of my time trying to get the teacher to say "Oh my God." She claimed she hadn't said that in the 15 years she had been religious. I call that bullshit.

Phew, it has almost becomes a 15 pages long discussion. LOL! It was 4 pages long when I first begun my response. LOL!!
Heh, you have to type faster than that to keep up around here. :D

Even if all that were true, being close to God in these days is impossible.

Why is that?

If we were talking it would be a different story. English is my second language, and I am too worry about spelling, even thought I know I probably mispelled some words already. I try my best, out of respect for the language of others.

If we were talking it would be a different story. English is my second language, and I am too worry about spelling, even thought I know I probably misspelled some words already. I try my best, ought of respect for the language of others.

Tú hablas español, no?

I think the tatoo law has something to do with what they meant during those times, or their meaning behind them. I mean, what if you tatoo a verse from the bible? Anyway, I have no tatoos, but I really wanted to get one with a lot of meaning behind it, don't know what yet. However hearing all this about tatoos I really don't know. I guess this takes me back to interpreting the bible as an individual. Think about it, you can explain something to me but I will still interpret it in my own way. Give five people a book, the same book to read, and they all will get a different interpretation from it.

What tattoo law are you writing about. I never heard of it.

What tattoo law are you writing about. I never heard of it.

Leviticus 19:28--"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord."

Well, once again, what does Christian doctrine says about my behavior, Parkus?

... that you can still be saved if your 'partner' is a christian.

... that you can still be saved if your 'partner' is a christian.

Neither of us is.

Neither of us is.

I'll still expect to see both of you up there. ;)
call me an optimist.

Why is that?

In todays world, in order to survive you must sin. For instance there insn't a single day that goes by where I am not in some way selfish.

I'll still expect to see both of you up there. ;)
call me an optimist.

Well, thanks for that JuNii.:wink:

You see Nanatsu that is why it must be more than meet the eye with this law. "Do not cut your bodies for the dead" that sounds like some kind of regilious freaks doing this. "or put tattoo marks on yourselves." who knows with this, what marks, what they meant? With the romans near by maybe they were marks of false gods. Who knows, a lot of info is missing. Also, these are the same people that even without any outside influence from other other cultures begun preaching to a golden calf, well their ancestors. Think about it.... I think there is more to this than what is written. You also have to take into account the whole lost in translation thing.

Tú hablas español, no?

El no habla espanol, yo hablo espanol.

You see Nanatsu that is why it must be more than meet the eye with this law. "Do not cut your bodies for the dead" that sounds like some kind of regilious freaks doing this. "or put tattoo marks on yourselves." who knows with this, what marks, what they meant? With the romans near by maybe they were marks of false gods. Who knows, a lot of info is missing. Also, these are the same people that even without any outside influence from other other cultures begun preaching to a golden calf, well their ancestors. Think about it.... I think there is more to this than what is written. You also have to take into account the whole lost in translation thing.

That was a quote straight from Leviticus.

Y sí, comprendo perfectamente que en las traducciones, muchos significados se hayan perdido. La Biblia no nos ha llegado verbatim. Es una traducción de una traducción de una traducción. Estoy segura que me entiendes. Los significados dentro de la misma Biblia son variados y, en ocasiones, algo difíciles de comprender en nuestros contextos.

You see Nanatsu that is why it must be more than meet the eye with this law. "Do not cut your bodies for the dead" that sounds like some kind of regilious freaks doing this. "or put tattoo marks on yourselves." who knows with this, what marks, what they meant? With the romans near by maybe they were marks of false gods. Who knows, a lot of info is missing. Also, these are the same people that even without any outside influence from other other cultures begun preaching to a golden calf, well their ancestors. Think about it.... I think there is more to this than what is written. You also have to take into account the whole lost in translation thing.

...

this calls for some investigation...

With English as a second language I know very well about lost in translation. It is huge, more than what you might imagine, specially in phrases. Some phrases can't be translated at all from English to Spanish, and the closest translation is completely different, just gives you a general idea of what it was said. Did you know how I got so good in English, stop confusing myself? I had to basically separate one language from the other, as of today I still have a hard time translating from one language to another, even thought I am fluent in both. Some things I just can't find an acceptable translation at all. They are hard to put an example right now, so please don't ask. However, believe me, they are all over the place. Then the style of the bible does not make it easy neither.

With English as a second language I know very well about lost in translation. It is huge, more than what you might imagine, specially in phrases. Some phrases can't be translated at all from English to Spanish, and the closest translation is completely different, just gives you a general idea of what it was said. Did you know how I got so good in English, stop confusing myself? I had to basically separate one language from the other, as of today I still have a hard time translating from one language to another, even thought I am fluent in both. Some things I just can't find an acceptable translation at all. They are hard to put an example right now, so please don't ask. However, believe me, they are all over the place. Then the style of the bible does not make it easy neither.

I'll give you a tool my English tutors always remarked on when I was learning English as a little girl. To truly be understood in a foreign langauge, you must think in this language in order to speak. When I speak English I try, at all times, to think in English too. When I speak French, I think in French. When I speak in Japanese, I think in Japanese.

Ah, so refreshing to see that Nanantsu speaks Spanish and knows what I mean. :D

Gracias compadre, esto en verdad es una discucion de la que nunca me canzo.

Ah, so refreshing to see that Nanantsu speaks Spanish and knows what I mean. :D

Gracias compadre, esto en verdad es una discucion de la que nunca me canzo.

Hombre, yo tampoco. Y es más relajante poder llevarla acabo en español. Es más cómodo.

((Y es comadre, compadre.:wink:))

When did this post become an english class?

I'll give you a tool my English tutors always remarked on when I was learning English as a little girl. To truly be understood in a foreign langauge, you must think in this language in order to speak. When I speak English I try, at all times, to think in English too. When I speak French, I think in French. When I speak in Japanese, I think in Japanese.

:) Yes that is what I mean by separating the two languages.

:) Yes that is what I mean by separating the two languages.

Then you're on the right path, amigo.

From Biblestudy.org (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/tattoos-and-body-piercing.html)

These things were done as a means to worship false gods that did not really exist. God says he is a Jealous God in Exodus 20:5. We are not to practice the way of the heathen when we worship Him.(Deuteronomy 8:19) The Hindus' do some of these things to this day. There was a big celebration event I witnessed on TV just recently showing all kinds of body mutilations. I found this disgusting.

when did this post become an english class?

:d ;)

When did this post become an english class?

It's NSG, the whole place is an English class. Notice the capital E in English.

It's NSG, the whole place is an English class. Notice the capital E in English.

*pats Adu-kun's back*:D

Whatever.

Whatever.

This post is entirely incompatible with the NSG philosophy.

I'll still expect to see both of you up there. ;)
call me an optimist.

If the Christian God does exist, then I hope it's something like the version you believe in.

But, to be honest, I doubt it. The Bible says that all non-Christians go to Hell.

If the Christian God does exist, then I hope it's something like the version you believe in.

But, to be honest, I doubt it. The Bible says that all non-Christians go to Hell.

there are exceptions. ;)

There is other people out there in the world that might of never even heard of the word Christ, or died before that. I don't think they are in hell because of this. Africa for example, some of the Africans that were sent to Cuba as slaves believed in one God only creator of heaven and earth, however they probably never even heard of Moses. See what I mean?

there are exceptions. ;)

Really? I've never seen any passages that would indicate that, and I've read a fair amount of the Bible. What are the exceptions? Would you be willing to cite any passages that would support the existence of such exceptions?

There is other people out there in the world that might of never even heard of the word Christ, or died before that. I don't think they are in hell because of this. Africa for example, some of the Africans that were sent to Cuba as slaves believed in one God only creator of heaven and earth, however they probably never even heard of Moses. See what I mean?

I do want to believe that too. A child that dies, innocent, but has never heard of God, must not be subject to the tortures of hell. God is a jaelous God, but he can't be so cruel as to confine a child who hasn't done anything wrong to Hell or Perdition for not having heard His name or for not having worshiped Him.

I am horrible quoting, or finding quotes, but I do remember reading that if your patner was a good christian that he could save your soul even if you were not. With this in mind I am going to marry someone from another religion in case mine is wrong! :D

This post is entirely incompatible with the NSG philosophy.

What do you mean when you say NSG?

NSG the game we play. Nation, whatever, whatever.... :D I am horrible with names as well.

Really? I've never seen any passages that would indicate that, and I've read a fair amount of the Bible. What are the exceptions? Would you be willing to cite any passages that would support the existence of such exceptions?

let me look for the passage. but it gives example of the husband being 'saved' through the wife's faith, the children through the parents, etc...

What do you mean when you say NSG?

NationStates: General.

Note: I believe in the life, and teachings of Jesus Christ but in a more mystical way. I feel like mainstream Salvationist Christianity has reached a pitiful existence for growing anyone spiritually, and in many ways is contributing to social ills. Many secular humanists care more about people than Christians, and that is sad. This salvationist thinking has been taken so far. I have been told by some Christians flat out that the souls of the Jews that died in the Holocaust are not assured because they did not believe in Jesus, and one said they think they might be in hell.

If most mainstream Salvationist Christians who took the Bible literally followed what it said then they are going to hell, or at least not making it into Heaven. Yet they only take certain verses literally, and conveniently. Most do not teach their teenagers about fornication for example or really care. Neither do they really care about the poor.

Matthew 19:21-24 KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Ephenians 5:3-5
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry



So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?

Christianity is easy to rag on, that's all. Not that others aren't, still there are a lot of things wrong with the whole ideal.

found it.
1 Corinthians 7:14
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Acts 16:31
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?

Oh poor poor Christians are always so oppressed. :(
:rolleyes:


But really, I tend to talk more about Christianity than about other religions because it's the religion that is constantly trying to take away other peoples' rights in my culture. If Christians would stop trying to make everybody else live by their standards, perhaps I wouldn't care as much. (Yes, I know not all Christians do this, but enough do to be quite a powerful voting block.)

Also, I know more about Christianity than I do about, say, Shinto, so I feel more qualified to comment on it.

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS?

There is. Often. It's just that you've got your special Poor Me glasses on, and they filter out reality so that your eyes need never be confronted with all the nasty little facts that contradict your dearly-held complexes.


Why does it always have to be Christianity?
It doesn't, and it isn't. However, since the majority of people who post here live in countries where the majority religion is Christianity, the majority of religion/policy discussions will apply first and foremost to Christianity.

If you'd like this to change, then we're on the same side! I'm personally fighting very hard to make sure that Christianity never impacts public policy in any way shape or form, so that we never have to discuss topics like these again. Join me!

found it.
1 Corinthians 7:14


Acts 16:31

Thanks!
So then everybody who isn't either a Christian or the son/daughter/spouse of a Christian will still be tortured for all eternity? That seems only marginally better than all non-believers being tortured for all eternity.

And don't those passages contradict Mark 16:16, which says that "he who believeth not shall be damned" without qualification?

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?

HahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHaha hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahaha hahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha...hahahaha. ..haha...ha..haha..ha...haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

HahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHaha hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahaha hahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha...hahahaha. ..haha...ha..haha..ha...haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Hey! People only say that Islam is oppressive, misogynistic, and such.

People say that they disagree with Christianity or that they don't want it to force itself into law. :eek:

Thanks!
So then everybody who isn't either a Christian or the son/daughter/spouse of a Christian will still be tortured for all eternity? That seems only marginally better than all non-believers being tortured for all eternity. why do you think believers are trying so hard to spread the word?

And don't those passages contradict Mark 16:16, which says that "he who believeth not shall be damned" without qualification? no. it doesn't.

why do you think believers are trying so hard to spread the word?

But sending somebody into eternal torment for having the wrong opinion (and their family having the wrong opinion) is insane, even evil, even if you have a bunch of followers trying to get people to believe in you.


no. it doesn't.

How not? Mark 16:16 says that, without qualification, if you are not a believer, you will go to Hell. Those passages say that there are qualifications. How is that not a contradiction?

no. it doesn't.

It kind of does, JuNii. Would a child that dies without knowing of God or not having worshiped Him, according to Christianity, he/she will be subject to the pains of Hell? He/she was an innocent. That... I don't know... is too cruel. I am not much of a believer, but I refuse to think that God can be so merciless.

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?Oh, there are. But the reaction is different.

If you bash christianity, you're a progressive concerned for civil rights and liberty.

If you bash any other religion, you're a fascist white supremacist [Religion]phobe.

why do you think believers are trying so hard to spread the word?

To rally an army to fight the individual that makes such rules ?

It kind of does, JuNii. Would a child that dies without knowing of God or not having worshiped Him, according to Christianity, he/she will be subject to the pains of Hell? He/she was an innocent. That... I don't know... is too cruel. I am not much of a believer, but I refuse to think that God can be so merciless.

God's a sadistic bastard.

Oh, there are. But the reaction is different.

If you bash christianity, you're a progressive concerned for civil rights and liberty.

If you bash any other religion, you're a fascist white supremacist [Religion]phobe.

See, if that was really how it played out, youd be right.

How it really plays out is more like this:
Critques of Christianity
1. The American religious right is hypocritical, because it focus more on the hatred of homosexuals then it does on helping the poor and brotherly love
2. The first ammendment is there for a reason, and Christianity has no right to enshrine its beliefs into law.

Critque of Islam
1. OMG MOSLEMS ARE TEH EBIL AND HATEZ FREEDOMZ!!11!1!

That is why one group gets caleld bigoted.

Oh, there are. But the reaction is different.

If you bash christianity, you're a progressive concerned for civil rights and liberty.

If you bash any other religion, you're a fascist white supremacist [Religion]phobe.

*coughs*
No.
As mentioned, the main reason Christianity gets more airtime is that most posters here are from nations where Christianity is dominant. Islam mostly gets attention based on the works of Osama c.s. which impact the countries the people here live in - and is therefor not popular either. Very few people here come into regular contact with Hindus, Buddhists and so on, let alone feel oppressed by them.

God's a sadistic bastard.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2003/jokerclapbq7.gif

God's a sadistic bastard.

Is He? Or are we the sadistic ones here? I don't know what to believe, really.

I will keep living my life the way I have lived it until now, to the fullest, with its innocence and its sins. And when the time to meet Him comes, as JuNii posted a while ago, I can only hope I lived it according to his true teachings, and not the teachings of men.

Critque of Islam
1. OMG MOSLEMS ARE TEH EBIL AND HATEZ FREEDOMZ!!11!1!

That is why one group gets caleld bigoted.

If I had more space on my sig, you would be there right now!:fluffle:

why do you think believers are trying so hard to spread the word?

Dude...

If I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the God of the Old Testament was real, there is absolutely no way I would go around trying to convince people to WORSHIP that.

I would be dedicating my life to finding out how we can find God and kill the bastard. I'd be spending every waking minute warning people AGAINST worship of that God.

Simply saying, "Believers think God really is enough of an asshole that he'd damn innocents to an eternity of torture" is not enough of an explanation for why those believers would turn around and ask anybody to WORSHIP that sadistic deity.

Is He? Or are we the sadistic ones here? I don't know what to believe, really.
Well, he did make us in his own image, did he not?
(Well if you believe that shit)
I will keep living my life the way I have lived it until now, to the fullest, with its innocence and its sins. And when the time to meet Him comes, as JuNii posted a while ago, I can only hope I lived it according to his true teachings, and not the teachings of men.

If he exists. And if he really cares what we do. And if he is really a "he".

If I had more space on my sig, you would be there right now!:fluffle:

Hopefully with my typo corrected:p

I would be dedicating my life to finding out how we can find God and kill the bastard. I'd be spending every waking minute warning people AGAINST worship of that God.


Since God is unbeatable by definition, I would do everything I can to convert as many people as possible, since the thought of anyone being tortured for an eternity is absolutely horrifying, and I would try to do all I can to minimize the amount of people who would have to go through with that.

Oh, there are. But the reaction is different.

If you bash christianity, you're a progressive concerned for civil rights and liberty.
Man, I want to move to whatever planet you live on. Cause whenever I bash Christianity, I'm a big meanie head who picks on the poor, oppressed Christian majority.

Well, he did make us in his own image, did he not?
(Well if you believe that shit)

*shrugs*

If he exists. And if he really cares what we do. And if he is really a "he".

I have always had the suspicion that if there is a God, this God is a woman.:wink:

Hopefully with my typo corrected:p

*nod*:tongue:

Since God is unbeatable by definition, I would do everything I can to convert as many people as possible, since the thought of anyone being tortured for an eternity is absolutely horrifying, and I would try to do all I can to minimize the amount of people who would have to go through with that.
I'm not clear on why you, or anybody else, would trust the promises of a God that would torture people for all eternity. Sure, he SAYS that you won't get tortured if you tow the line. He also likes to command the slaughter of children. So you know, take it with a grain of salt maybe?

I have always had the suspicion that if there is a God, this God is a woman.:wink:

That would explain the crazyness. :D

Man, I want to move to whatever planet you live on. Cause whenever I bash Christianity, I'm a big meanie head who picks on the poor, oppressed Christian majority.Oh, right. I forgot. The only relevant argument is whether a given group is a majority or not. Majorities cannot be wronged. Only minorities can be.

I'm not clear on why you, or anybody else, would trust the promises of a God that would torture people for all eternity. Sure, he SAYS that you won't get tortured if you tow the line. He also likes to command the slaughter of children. So you know, take it with a grain of salt maybe?

Or a pillar, more likely.

I'm not clear on why you, or anybody else, would trust the promises of a God that would torture people for all eternity. Sure, he SAYS that you won't get tortured if you tow the line. He also likes to command the slaughter of children. So you know, take it with a grain of salt maybe?

Why? Just because he punishes people extremely for disobeying him, wouldn't give me any reason to find him unreliable or dishonest. If you thought God was lying, you wouldn't really be a Christian in the first place.

See, if that was really how it played out, youd be right.

How it really plays out is more like this:
Critques of Christianity
1. The American religious right is hypocritical, because it focus more on the hatred of homosexuals then it does on helping the poor and brotherly love
2. The first ammendment is there for a reason, and Christianity has no right to enshrine its beliefs into law.

Critque of Islam
1. OMG MOSLEMS ARE TEH EBIL AND HATEZ FREEDOMZ!!11!1!

That is why one group gets caleld bigoted.Unortunately, OMG MOSLEMS ARE TEH EBIL AND HATEZ FREEDOMZ!!11!1! is't what's said by those who criticise islam - it's what aforementioned progressives claim they say. This does not, however, correspond to reality, unless you're blind on 1 1/2 eyes.

Also, I don't think sentences such as 'Then you're one of a small minority of christians who aren't nuts' (Paraphrased) correspond to your view on how christianity is usually criticised.

In todays world, in order to survive you must sin. For instance there insn't a single day that goes by where I am not in some way selfish.
Wasn't that true in earlier times, too?

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?
Because other bigots have learned what happens to them when they insult those other religions. Now it's time for Christian-bashers to learn that lesson.

Of course, the OP actually is not insulting Christianity, but rather taking Christians to task in honor of Easter. I think the OP is a Christian.

I live with my partner, out of wedlock. You're basically telling me I'm a sinner, by NT standards. But I submit to him, I respect him, I do everything a wife does. But we're not bound legally or religiously. I follow the precepts, but I am not married. Does that, nevertheless, makes me a sinner? I don't think so. I know married people who betray their spouses and break NT rules, and I wouldn't dare betray my partner.

I don't think any human should judge another. Your post is a good example of what I am talking about. I suppose I should say read the Bible and see what you think.

All the you in the next paragraph are plural.
I assume you have thought about marriage and for some reason it is either not right for you or not right for you at this moment in life. Maybe you are waiting for one or the the both of you to finish school, Maybe you are not sure if he is the right one. Maybe you do not trust the institution of marriage. Maybe you have not go around to yet. Maybe one or both of you feel you are too young. Those are just off the top of my head.

We all endeavor to lead a good life somewhere along the line life gets in the way. I understand that because I am right here with you. I think and I hope God understands that as well.

Why? Just because he punishes people extremely for disobeying him, wouldn't give me any reason to find him unreliable or dishonest. If you thought God was lying, you wouldn't really be a Christian in the first place.

I like how you totally ignored the part where he said that God tortures babies, which (according to Christianity) God was at least the creator of such a thing.

Wasn't that true in earlier times, too?

Yep, which furthermore indicates flaws from the very start.

I like how you totally ignored the part where he said that God tortures babies, which (according to Christianity) God was at least the creator of such a thing.

Erm... what? How would me acknowledging that he also 'tortured babies' change or contradict, in anyway, whatsoever, anything I said?

The OP believes in several messengers of God, but being an original Christian I simply came to the point where I saw that only Jesus Christ's message is important, and that Jesus Christ's only message was Unconditional Love and his entire ministry was dedicated to showing this and showing how to help the poor.

My search for truth started when I realized the Bible cannot, and is not infalliable and that God would not send more than half of humanity to Hell for not believing Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Paul perpetuated this more than anyone.

I choose not to be a Paulian (Which most modern Christians are) and believe what Jesus Christ taught. Which was only Love.

If Jesus Christ was the only salvation he would have gone around saying he was all the time, and that if people did not believe he was they were going to go to hell. He did NOT say that. Paul said that and some others.

Erm... what? How would me acknowledging that he also 'tortured babies' change or contradict, in anyway, whatsoever, anything I said?

It doesn't. What the other guy was saying was "I wouldn't be on the same side of a God that would torture babies." I was merley pointing out that you avoided his point entirely.

It doesn't. What the other guy was saying was "I wouldn't be on the same side of a God that would torture babies." I was merley pointing out that you avoided his point entirely.

No, she was saying that she would do everything she can to convince people not to follow him and figure out ways to defeat him. I was saying that since he is impossible to defeat by definition, that would be futile, an d would merely result in more people going to hell. I would instead try to get as many people not to go to hell as possible. She then said that you shouldn't trust God because he did some nasty things like slaughter children, I'm saying that doesn't show God to be a liar. But far, far more importantly is the fact that this is irrelevant, because if you don't trust that Jesus is the way etc... then you're not a Christian in the first place, and Junii was clearly originally discussing why Christians try to convert others, not just people who believe in the God of the old testament.

I do want to believe that too. A child that dies, innocent, but has never heard of God, must not be subject to the tortures of hell. God is a jaelous God, but he can't be so cruel as to confine a child who hasn't done anything wrong to Hell or Perdition for not having heard His name or for not having worshiped Him.

Children are innocent and you are correct they do not go to Hell. Only when you reach the age of maturity.

Why is there never anyone trying to bring down or insult Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religions on NS? Why does it always have to be Christianity?

Some how we got to head of the class. You know the front runner. Everybody takes a shot at us.

The OP believes in several messengers of God, but being an original Christian I simply came to the point where I saw that only Jesus Christ's message is important, and that Jesus Christ's only message was Unconditional Love and his entire ministry was dedicated to showing this and showing how to help the poor.

My search for truth started when I realized the Bible cannot, and is not infalliable and that God would not send more than half of humanity to Hell for not believing Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Paul perpetuated this more than anyone.

I choose not to be a Paulian (Which most modern Christians are) and believe what Jesus Christ taught. Which was only Love.

If Jesus Christ was the only salvation he would have gone around saying he was all the time, and that if people did not believe he was they were going to go to hell. He did NOT say that. Paul said that and some others.

John 14:6

John 14:6

That is the most often quote but resembles mystical quotes from many different spiritual teachers, and prophets. I believe this is mystical.

If this is the essence of all his teaching, most of his Ministry did not indicate it. Still this says "eternal life" but life is used in many instances in the Bible in a mystical fashion, it is said that one is in death if they for example are not loving.

He never says that people who do not believe him are going to Hell, Paul and others said that but they were NOT Jesus speaking from God.

I believe Jesus came to teach exclusively that Unconditional Love was the Truth, and that is his Truth. I personally believe in his death and spiritual resurrection.

I do not believe salvationist Christians or Paulians who teach that his entire life and message is to believe in him or go to hell (or be "unsaved")

Children are innocent and you are correct they do not go to Hell. Only when you reach the age of maturity.

Wait, aren't you a roman catholic?

You know original sin and all that...

Wait, aren't you a roman catholic?

You know original sin and all that...

Yes they got rid of Limbo years ago. Children go to heaven.

Children are innocent and you are correct they do not go to Hell. Only when you reach the age of maturity.

Wait wait wait, is the Catholic age of maturity the same as the legal age of majority? Because otherwise this is looking like a major loophole. A ten-year-old could murder her parents because she got a deep and abiding pleasure from doing it and then so long as she didn't kill anyone after the age of maturity, she'd get into heaven scot free!

But sending somebody into eternal torment for having the wrong opinion (and their family having the wrong opinion) is insane, even evil, even if you have a bunch of followers trying to get people to believe in you.
Hmm... you have a place that is invitation only. and the only way to get that invitation is to claim it.

so for not allowing those into such a place who didn't claim that invitiation, is evil?

instead of doing all the rituals that was once needed to get that invite, God now made it simple, and because you refuse to even attempt that simple thing, you call Him evil?


How not? Mark 16:16 says that, without qualification, if you are not a believer, you will go to Hell. Those passages say that there are qualifications. How is that not a contradiction?

14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.this talks about salvation for the house/family.
however, the passage you quoted talks about personal salvation.

It kind of does, JuNii. Would a child that dies without knowing of God or not having worshiped Him, according to Christianity, he/she will be subject to the pains of Hell? He/she was an innocent. That... I don't know... is too cruel. I am not much of a believer, but I refuse to think that God can be so merciless.I believe that was Catholics that 'condemned' children to Limbo. as far as I was taught, there was no 'Limbo' and that children were welcome to Heaven.

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-14
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Dude...

If I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the God of the Old Testament was real, there is absolutely no way I would go around trying to convince people to WORSHIP that.

I would be dedicating my life to finding out how we can find God and kill the bastard. I'd be spending every waking minute warning people AGAINST worship of that God.

Simply saying, "Believers think God really is enough of an asshole that he'd damn innocents to an eternity of torture" is not enough of an explanation for why those believers would turn around and ask anybody to WORSHIP that sadistic deity.
and that is your choice. you choose to refuse to hear the word, or to accept the God of Abraham as your savoir, then that is your choice. but you did have the opportunity to hear and choose.

Wait, aren't you a roman catholic?

You know original sin and all that...
and the sin was washed away by the Blood of the Lamb. ;)

Wait wait wait, is the Catholic age of maturity the same as the legal age of majority? Because otherwise this is looking like a major loophole. A ten-year-old could murder her parents because she got a deep and abiding pleasure from doing it and then so long as she didn't kill anyone after the age of maturity, she'd get into heaven scot free!

You have to be able to discern the consequences of your actions. Basically you have to understand what sin is and what right and wrong is. I believe it is 15 or 16 years old. I will try to look up the answer.

Wait wait wait, is the Catholic age of maturity the same as the legal age of majority? Because otherwise this is looking like a major loophole. A ten-year-old could murder her parents because she got a deep and abiding pleasure from doing it and then so long as she didn't kill anyone after the age of maturity, she'd get into heaven scot free!

See the book written by a Catholic to make a point: A Clockwork Orange, Chapter 21.

you choose to refuse to hear the word, or to accept the God of Abraham as your savoir, then that is your choice. but you did have the opportunity to hear and choose. and the sin was washed away by the Blood of the Lamb. ;)

What if I don't believe Jesus Christ ever required anyone to believe he was God or in him to get salvation and I choose to only believe what Jesus Christ speaking for God said, and not any of the other disagreeing Apostles such as Paul? Most Christians are more Paulians, they believe what Paul said about it not Jesus himself. Jesus's primary message was Love and that the sum of the law is Love, not salvation or that he was God and believe in him or you go to hell.

I do feel his death did wash away the sins for all of humanity.

What if I don't believe Jesus Christ ever required anyone to believe he was God or in him to get salvation and I choose to only believe what Jesus Christ speaking for God said, and not any of the other disagreeing Apostles such as Paul? Most Christians are more Paulians, they believe what Paul said about it not Jesus himself. Jesus's primary message was Love and that the sum of the law is Love, not salvation or that he was God and believe in him or you go to hell.

I do feel his death did wash away the sins for all of humanity.

I agree. Paul is responsible for most of the stupid elements of Christianity, whereas Jesus provided the redeeming qualities.

16 appears to be the minimum.

Hmm... you have a place that is invitation only. and the only way to get that invitation is to claim it.

so for not allowing those into such a place who didn't claim that invitiation, is evil?

instead of doing all the rituals that was once needed to get that invite, God now made it simple, and because you refuse to even attempt that simple thing, you call Him evil?




this talks about salvation for the house/family.
however, the passage you quoted talks about personal salvation.

I believe that was Catholics that 'condemned' children to Limbo. as far as I was taught, there was no 'Limbo' and that children were welcome to Heaven.

Matthew 18:3


Matthew 19:13-14



and that is your choice. you choose to refuse to hear the word, or to accept the God of Abraham as your savoir, then that is your choice. but you did have the opportunity to hear and choose.


and the sin was washed away by the Blood of the Lamb. ;)

Nicely done. One further point I think it was an effort to get people baptized in the faith as soon as possible after birth, why I don't know. I really believe Limbo was a human idea.

What if I don't believe Jesus Christ ever required anyone to believe he was God or in him to get salvation and I choose to only believe what Jesus Christ speaking for God said, and not any of the other disagreeing Apostles such as Paul? Most Christians are more Paulians, they believe what Paul said about it not Jesus himself. Jesus's primary message was Love and that the sum of the law is Love, not salvation or that he was God and believe in him or you go to hell.

I do feel his death did wash away the sins for all of humanity.

but even Jesus spoke of having faith in God.

then you have the last supper.

and yes, his death did wash away the sins for all of Humanity. but if you didn't believe in the sins, would you claim the blood cleansed you? to claim salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus, you need to
1) Believe he died for our sins.
2) God sent him to wash away our sins
3) Claim that salvation.

and all three requires that you
1) Believe in God

but even Jesus spoke of having faith in God.

then you have the last supper.

I have faith in God, strong faith, and believe that the God is everyone's God. I do not believe Jesus ever obviously said he was the only way and that everyone else is going to Hell. He also repeatedly references his Father, the Father. If Jesus's entire Ministry was him saying that he was the ONLY way and that everyone else will go to hell I would subscribe to the salvationist view, but he did not. Paul contributed to all of that.

I believe the essence of Jesus Christ's message was Unconditional Love, and in some places the "Kingdom of Heaven" has a mystical meaning. I feel that Christians totally missed the point, and are more Paulians.

That is the most often quote but resembles mystical quotes from many different spiritual teachers, and prophets. I believe this is mystical.

If this is the essence of all his teaching, most of his Ministry did not indicate it. Still this says "eternal life" but life is used in many instances in the Bible in a mystical fashion, it is said that one is in death if they for example are not loving.

He never says that people who do not believe him are going to Hell, Paul and others said that but they were NOT Jesus speaking from God.

I believe Jesus came to teach exclusively that Unconditional Love was the Truth, and that is his Truth. I personally believe in his death and spiritual resurrection.

I do not believe salvationist Christians or Paulians who teach that his entire life and message is to believe in him or go to hell (or be "unsaved")

So, when something doesn't agree with your view of things you choose to ignore it or say it doesn't say what it says?

Wait wait wait, is the Catholic age of maturity the same as the legal age of majority? Because otherwise this is looking like a major loophole. A ten-year-old could murder her parents because she got a deep and abiding pleasure from doing it and then so long as she didn't kill anyone after the age of maturity, she'd get into heaven scot free!

IMHO, that is one that would fall to the catagory of 'between the sinner and God.'

What if I don't believe Jesus Christ ever required anyone to believe he was God or in him to get salvation and I choose to only believe what Jesus Christ speaking for God said, and not any of the other disagreeing Apostles such as Paul? Most Christians are more Paulians, they believe what Paul said about it not Jesus himself. Jesus's primary message was Love and that the sum of the law is Love, not salvation or that he was God and believe in him or you go to hell.

I do feel his death did wash away the sins for all of humanity.

This is a good question is it more more important to Believe that he is the Son of God or is it more important to follow his teachings. I think the later is more important.

Matthew 25:34-46
The Sheep and the Goats
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

So, when something doesn't agree with your view of things you choose to ignore it or say it doesn't say what it says?

No, I choose to follow directly what Jesus Christ said and the entire spirit of his Ministry. You still cannot point out a place where Jesus Christ repeatedly, or directly says "I am God, I am the Only Way, and everyone who does not believe this is going to hell."

If this was the entire message of his Ministry, I would agree with you, but it was not the message of his Ministry. His message was Unconditional Love.

You are a Paulian, who believes more in what Paul said that Jesus himself said.

This is a good question is it more more important to Believe that he is the Son of God or is it more important to follow his teachings. I think the later is more important.

Matthew 25:34-46
The Sheep and the Goats
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

EXACTLY. But Christians believe they can simply believe in him and that is all they have to do, nothing more, and that is all

EXACTLY. But Christians believe they can simply believe in him and that is all they have to do, nothing more, and that is all

Faith alone may be enough. However Faith with Works is almost as sure a thing as you can get. So kind of sort of both is my answer. Sorry it doesn't get much better than that.

I have faith in God, strong faith, and believe that the God is everyone's God. I do not believe Jesus ever obviously said he was the only way and that everyone else is going to Hell. He also repeatedly references his Father, the Father. If Jesus's entire Ministry was him saying that he was the ONLY way and that everyone else will go to hell I would subscribe to the salvationist view, but he did not. Paul contributed to all of that.

I believe the essence of Jesus Christ's message was Unconditional Love, and in some places the "Kingdom of Heaven" has a mystical meaning. I feel that Christians totally missed the point, and are more Paulians.

yet you have witness who reports that Jesus did say that he was the only way to heaven.

how does that detract from his message of love? And his teachings are of 'unconditional' love yet also of obediance to God and the Commandments?

I believe that was Catholics that 'condemned' children to Limbo. as far as I was taught, there was no 'Limbo' and that children were welcome to Heaven.




Limbo is NOT taught as Catholic doctrine. While the belief has been traditionally held, it's never been officially backed, and the Vatican is currently in the process of reviewing the theology that may or may not support the idea in order to make an official statement at a later date. See link below:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

Also, "condemned" is the wrong word to use. Traditionally, Limbo has been viewed as a state of happiness, but a limited happiness due to the lack of Beaitific Vision. Read on:

http://httpyavww.knight.org/cathen/09256a.htm

No, I choose to follow directly what Jesus Christ said and the entire spirit of his Ministry. You still cannot point out a place where Jesus Christ repeatedly, or directly says "I am God, I am the Only Way, and everyone who does not believe this is going to hell."

If this was the entire message of his Ministry, I would agree with you, but it was not the message of his Ministry. His message was Unconditional Love.

You are a Paulian, who believes more in what Paul said that Jesus himself said.

and you are focusing on who is saying what and not what is being said.

No, I choose to follow directly what Jesus Christ said and the entire spirit of his Ministry. You still cannot point out a place where Jesus Christ repeatedly, or directly says "I am God, I am the Only Way, and everyone who does not believe this is going to hell."

If this was the entire message of his Ministry, I would agree with you, but it was not the message of his Ministry. His message was Unconditional Love.

You are a Paulian, who believes more in what Paul said that Jesus himself said.
I'm not a Paulian.

Matthew 25:34-46

The question is do most contemporary Christians focus on this verse like they do others, and I say no. They mostly listen to Paul.

No, I choose to follow directly what Jesus Christ said and the entire spirit of his Ministry.

What you're doing is cherrypicking verses and ignoring the Church Fathers, the early Apostolic community, and 2000 years of tradition as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants (500 yrs for them).

How about you believe what you believe, and stop trying to convince everyone else? I'd be happy with that.