I am a Christian

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Southpark points out how ridiculous Mormonism is: Find and watch, Episode: Season 7: All About Mormons. I wish I could find a link to the entire episode but so far no luck. Here is a small part of it at the end:
LINK

Actually, in one of my favorite episodes, South Park admits that it IS the Mormons who were correct after all. So if South Park is the definitive authority of truth, then the Mormons must be right.

What mormons believe cartoon:
LINK

Ah, the good ole Godmakers video. Is that really the best you've got? That video was condemned by non-Mormon, independent groups as being pathetic.

Reviews

I do hope you can come up with something better.

EDIT: Sorry, couldn't find a youtube clip, but here's the dialog from South Park (very funny episode)

Hell Director: Hello, newcomers and welcome. Can everybody hear me? Hello?
[taps microphone]
Hell Director: Can everybody... ok. Um, I am the Hell Director. Uh, it looks like we have 8,615 of you newbies today. And for those of you who were little confused: uh, you are dead; and this is Hell. So abbandon all hope and yadda-yadda-yadda. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation PROcess which will last about...
Protestant: Hey, wait a minute. I shouldn't be here, I was a totally strick and devout Protestant. I thought we went to heaven.
Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Soldier: I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness.
Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well.
Man from Crowd: Well who was right? Who gets in to Heaven?
Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the MORmons. Yes, the MORmons were the correct answer.
The Damned: Awwww...

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: busmaster11
My one point of contention here is that I don't believe that there is such a thing as living a "good life" - at least not in any context of claims to "deserving" heaven.

Do you deny the very concept of living a good life, yet proclaim yourself spiritual, but think that you might deserve heaven because you appeal to the right name of God?

I deny any personal claim or case for my "deserving" anything good. I have hope for heaven because I am not cynical about my own depravity and need for God's mercy.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Macattak1

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

Perhaps I did? Not sure what your pointing out. Do you mean the one that I specifically replied to or another posts question?

Peace and Blessings

How does Jhn 15:16 redefine the quote that The Presence was inquiring about (No one comes to the father but by me) in such a way as to allow for what thecoolnessrune stated to be true.

In essence what relevance does Jhn 15:16 have to the discussion. In layman's terms.

Greetings,

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; This means everyone. God knows this because
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. God is from eternity past to eternity future. He has seen it and knows it all.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And the Father gave the Son All that would be saved.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Thus Jesus is/has the key(s) to Heaven (and Hell).
Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. And those that the Father (God) gave to the Son (God) were chosen by the Son (God).

As for what was stated with regard to children? There are verses that point to the love that God has for Children. However, God has also Hated and Condemned the unborn and children. See Isac and Esau and many cities that were to be 100% destroyed. There is no one or many verses that hold God to saving All Children. I know of no verses that command that God be held to this. Who God saves is His Rightious Pleasure.

Children are not innocent. No one is. From birth we are filled with sin and we are a dead bag of bones and rotting flesh (spiritually). Only through the blood of the lamb are we able to be forgiven (made perfect) and receive salvation.

Let me know if I completely missed here or if I left something unanswered.

Peace and Blessings

You keep beating around the bush and throwing in unrelated verses in what seems to me an attempt to muddy the waters.
I understand this is not something easily answered with a yes or no which is why most Christians I've asked this to simply stated that they do not know a correct answer. However you have attempted to answer the question, so let me post to you a yes or no question.
Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me, which means that in order to be saved, one must accept Jesus. If someone is born, lives a good life and dies in the jungles of Asia without ever hearing of Jesus and his teaching, is he doomed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs.
I honestly want to know what the Christian faith believes regarding this question, and I have never received a satisfactory answer.

I don't know. People don't believe in saying that much anymore, as if lack of confidence is a sign of weakness. ITs actually a sign of humility and openmindedness. .

If I had to say, it would be a "probably doomed" based upon the Bible. But we don't know when He may chose to be merciful - it is part of His sovereignty which is not revealed to us.

My one point of contention here is that I don't believe that there is such a thing as living a "good life" - at least not in any context of claims to "deserving" heaven.

Okay, that's fine.
Me, myself as a person, I would have trouble with this question if I were Christian.
I'd have more trouble with the answer. It's beyond this person's control because he was never given the opportunity be saved, so he is doomed. That would bother me.
But I'm on the outside looking in as I am not Christian.
Thanks for your honesty.

Thanks. I struggled with that a lot. A whole lot. Till I was 27. (I'm almost 30 now)

What really got me over it was the understanding of the "default" condition. That would be God, in perfect grace, goodness, purity, and wisdom. It didn't take me long to realize that take anyone - even a baby, and grow that in the environment and the baby will soon be the only source of selfisness in that environment. From a young age a baby learns to care only for himself - plus - this was done already - in the garden of eden - this test was performed - and man knew inherently how to disobey God.

So my conclusion was that no one could ever make a claim to 100% purity - and the kingdom of heaven is unblemished. Nevermind yet the idea of original sin, but one small white lie will disqualify you - it says more about our character than we are willing to acknowledge.

So the only other alternative to God's kingdom is a place where God never ventures. If God is our only source of light and hope, hell need not be anything special - it only has to be a place void of hope.


One other thing - if you believe God created us, what is the purpose? This is why no other religion makes sense - they all say that a superior being created us - yet we have to work to attain paradise ourselves - so they in essensce believe that God created us for our own purpose - Do you build a computer, or go buy a dog, for its own sake?

Christ's first love is His glory - and thats why we were created - to glorify Him. So any value we have is attributed to us from Him. We have none of our own. This is not a concept that the world can accept easily.

So from our perspective it seems that its drastic that a baby will be condemned before it has a chance to defend itself, but if we consider our value is only what is attributed to us by our Lord, and worthless otherwise, this idea is not as unbelievable as it sounds.

To the cynics out there I must make no sense. But as quoted earlier, the Bible should always run counter to the world. I call on other believers here to back me up on this or rebuke me if needed.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
One other thing - if you believe God created us, what is the purpose? This is why no other religion makes sense - they all say that a superior being created us - yet we have to work to attain paradise ourselves - so they in essensce believe that God created us for our own purpose - Do you build a computer, or go buy a dog, for its own sake?

Christianity is the religion that says man is born into sin and has to get into paradise by accepting Jesus. Many, if not most of the other religions believe that man is born pure. He's in until he screws it up with his own sins. Then the work of reattaining it begins.

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
Go where? Mormons are even more loony than evangelical Christians. Thats almost common knowledge.

If your intelligence is any indication of what normal or sane is, I'll be happy to be loony.

It is a category error to evaluate opinions as right or wrong. Of course, no one ever accused you of being a bastion of intelligence.

Opinion of translation is very easily categorized as right or wrong. You can translate something properly, or you can translate it improperly. Perhaps you in your infinite wisdom could provide another scenario?

Try what? We've already established that you're impervious to reason, and the fact that you've bought into Mormonism confirms that you are a poor judge of facts. What is there to try?

No, I'm just impervious to idiots like you. Since you can't read, I'll tell you what you can try. You want to back up any of your ridiculous comments on the lunacy of Mormonism, you go ahead and try it little man. But like I said, you don't have the ball or intelligence to do it.

Greetings,

Since you went in the direction you did, I will point out some basics that you already know, but he and others may not.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Mormanism is much like other religions of man. Made up by man with mans heart, pride, ego, wisdom, etc. all added to create something new. Of course, there is nothing new.
Mormanism, JW, 7th day, Catholicism, and others do not have the Rosetta stone and are not "The way" let alone "The only way".

Mormanism includes much that is good. But the sin that is mixed in with it is what makes it rotten to the core just like all of 'mans' religions. One does not need mans religion to be saved. One only needs the Word.

Secrecy
Living Prophets
Living Prophets infalibility
Living Prophets and continuing revelation
Who Jesus is and who his brother is
Virgin birth
Polygamy
Baptism of Dead
Progression to Godhood
Marriage in heaven

American indians from lehi but no hebrew in them
Horses in America
A bow of steel
Scimitars
Silk

Early centuries being the Morman church and not the Catholic (Roman) church
Same errors in the Book of Morman as in the KJV
No historical or achealogical evidence.

It is better just to follow the Word of God and leave all other books alone.

Peace and Blessings

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Macattak1

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

4) You subscribe to the Big Bang/Primordial Soup something-out-of-nothing evolutionary view, which requires as much of a leap of faith

Uh, not really. Scientists are always looking for new information. Nothing is infallable. You can subscribe to the Big Bang as the best current explanation for the universe we see while keeping an open mind to the possibility that the theory may need some changes later. There is no faith required.

Greetings,

Maybe there is no faith required. But, just like a movie, one needs to Suspend Disbelief. And I am very thankful that we only do this to the degree that we do with Evolution.

Immagine if the attitude towards Evolution, Big Bang (primo soup and such) were used in other places. Say a court of law where you just accept what just may be the best story. That might be how the innocent murdered another or how the guilty could not have committed a murder.

Or how about in corporate or personal accounting and book keeping, driving cars, building houses and office towers, etc.

It should not be based upon the best story, line, or idea at the time. If Toyota designed the safety of cars upon an idea there would be a lot of dead drivers. One must ignore a lot of evidence when one takes up the Evolution or Primo Soup position. There is a new theory out there gaining ground. Goes something like this. The chances of planet earth occuring as it did with life is say 1 out of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 so naturally, there must be 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so universes out there.

A christian scientist some 30 to 50 years back stated basically that one can design theories and such, but at some time they must be proven true. They can not go on indefinatly as 'theory'. His theory was that when we can measure the radioactive deacay from one heavenly body to another we will find that the decay is the same. That the decay will not be at different stages, etc. This was proven a few decades later to be true. Radioactive decay from one heavenly body to another has been shown to be equal and consistent (same rate). Which indicates that things originated at the same time not spread out over billions or millions of years.

Peace and Blessings

There is no suspension of disbelief. The first step is admitting ignorance, something which no religious person I know of does. They KNOW God created the heavens and the Earth and the Bible provides an explanation for the universe. That's where their inquisition on the subject ends.

To follow your trial analogy, they arrest the bad guy, he claims innocence, and they buy it. Accepting the best story after admitting ignorance is far superior than claiming full knowledge after a single answer.

To rebut your court analogy, that IS how the courts work. Both sides present their argument and the jury takes the witnesses to be credible or not, weighs testimony, and then determines if the burden of proof has been met.

Toyota designs cars based on testing and fact, not on faith. "That pin is weak and prone to breaking under stress, let's redesign it." or "That pin is weak and prone to breaking, if God deems a passenger's time to be up, then He will break it and it is out of our hands."

The reason why radioactive decay shows the planets as being of about the same age is because they are. They were all formed at roughly the same time. All of the planets formed within a few hundred million years of each other from a protoplanetary disk. We see similar structures elsewhere in the universe. We see stars forming, stars in middle age, and stars dying. We can even see the remnants of stars long dead. Certainly the planets were formed at around the same time, but not everything in the heavens was.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Christianity is the religion that says man is born into sin and has to get into paradise by accepting Jesus. Many, if not most of the other religions believe that man is born pure. He's in until he screws it up with his own sins. Then the work of reattaining it begins.

I would not say that this is an accurate portrayal of other religions. Most religions say that man is flawed and ignorant, with few exceptions e.g. Jesus. The nature of the flaws are interesting, and a consistent part among serious religions is that flaw has to do with the flesh significantly but not exclusively, and includes various lists of specific flaws such as the attractions of lust, greed and anger. There is depth.

Christianity is also not alone in asserting that supplication to God is necessary for best effect. The notion of blind leading blind is trivially sadly applicable. It is impossible by definition for one to attain God's grace by his or her own effort, however it is also incorrect in my understanding to hold yourself worthy of God's grace through cheap means or by default. Here are where challenges arise. The apostles of Jesus had to purify themselves beforehand through some efforts, but once they'd done that and were in the living presence of Jesus, following the book as it was was not the point. Following the living messiah would very clearly be The Way for them.

The point of many religions is not thorough their books to be granted heaven directly, but by behaving well to become ready and more worthy of a potential Grace. It some ways it's not complicated at all. The theory part is for idiots like me to debate with others. The hard part is always the living of the theory.

 

[engineereeyore]

Since you can't read, I'll say it again. This belongs on private messages as it is way off topic, but here are you answers anyway. At least you had the balls, still lacking in the intelligence though.

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

Since you went in the direction you did, I will point out some basics that you already know, but he and others may not.

Since I went in the direction I did? Yes, by all means. Pardon me for defending my religion.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Mormanism is much like other religions of man. Made up by man with mans heart, pride, ego, wisdom, etc. all added to create something new. Of course, there is nothing new.
Mormanism, JW, 7th day, Catholicism, and others do not have the Rosetta stone and are not "The way" let alone "The only way".

Mormanism includes much that is good. But the sin that is mixed in with it is what makes it rotten to the core just like all of 'mans' religions. One does not need mans religion to be saved. One only needs the Word.

First off, you see those red squiggly lines that show up under a word? That means you spelled something wrong. Mormonism has two o's, not an a.

And you're correct. It made by a man. His name was Christ. By all means, mock his religion all you wish. Doesn't affect me.

Secrecy

Sacred I believe would be a better term.

Living Prophets

Yeah, what the hell. Why would we have prophets today like they did years ago. That makes no sense.

Living Prophets infalibility

Living prophets are people just like anyone else. Anyone who would make such a claim is an idiot. Glad it's you and not me.

Living Prophets and continuing revelation

Yet again, why would his church today resemble his church in ancient times. What kind of unchanging God would do that?

Who Jesus is and who his brother is

Hmm. Lucifer fell from Heaven. Who lives in Heaven? God and his children. What would that make Lucifer? I know it's tough, but I think you can put it together.

Virgin birth

Yeah, we believe Mary was a virgin. If you'd like to produce and official statement from the church that says otherwise, feel free to try.

Polygamy

Yep, we're all going to hell for that one. Get to hang out with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other prophets who practiced it before, since that's where you're consigning them as well.

Baptism of Dead

Gee scooter, that's specifically taught in the Bible. What's the problem there?

Progression to Godhood

Also specifically taught in the Bible. I'm failing to see the problems here.

Marriage in heaven

Again, the problem here is?

American indians from lehi but no hebrew in them

Oh, I've seen the 'evidence' against that. Funny thing is, there is evidence for it too.

Horses in America

Yes, they'd been in the America's before and 'died out'. Now what are the odds that happened again? What are the odds they were brought over? We know that to the best of our knowledge they didn't exist when the Spaniards came over, but the latest references to them in the Book of Mormon are around 30 B.C., 370 years before the end of the book. Gee, wonder what happened?

A bow of steel

And the problem?

Scimitars

This weapon dates back to nearly 1600 B.C. by the Egyptians. Even if that wasn't the case, the term scimitar was probably the closest match in English to the type of weapon that was used. So yet again, what's the problem?

Silk

Explanations would really help your cause here. First reference to silk was while they were still in the Middle East, which was not uncommon. They knew how to make it, they used it. What's the problem?

Early centuries being the Morman church and not the Catholic (Roman) church

What does that have to do with anything?

Same errors in the Book of Morman as in the KJV

Which would be??

No historical or achealogical evidence.

Evidence

It is better just to follow the Word of God and leave all other books alone.

If the Word of God was in one book alone, that would be fine. Seeing as you have no right to tell God how many books he can and can't have, I'd say that's a bad stance to take.

Peace and Blessings

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Macattak1

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

Perhaps I did? Not sure what your pointing out. Do you mean the one that I specifically replied to or another posts question?

Peace and Blessings

How does Jhn 15:16 redefine the quote that The Presence was inquiring about (No one comes to the father but by me) in such a way as to allow for what thecoolnessrune stated to be true.

In essence what relevance does Jhn 15:16 have to the discussion. In layman's terms.

Greetings,

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; This means everyone. God knows this because
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. God is from eternity past to eternity future. He has seen it and knows it all.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And the Father gave the Son All that would be saved.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Thus Jesus is/has the key(s) to Heaven (and Hell).
Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. And those that the Father (God) gave to the Son (God) were chosen by the Son (God).

As for what was stated with regard to children? There are verses that point to the love that God has for Children. However, God has also Hated and Condemned the unborn and children. See Isac and Esau and many cities that were to be 100% destroyed. There is no one or many verses that hold God to saving All Children. I know of no verses that command that God be held to this. Who God saves is His Rightious Pleasure.

Children are not innocent. No one is. From birth we are filled with sin and we are a dead bag of bones and rotting flesh (spiritually). Only through the blood of the lamb are we able to be forgiven (made perfect) and receive salvation.

Let me know if I completely missed here or if I left something unanswered.

Peace and Blessings

You keep beating around the bush and throwing in unrelated verses in what seems to me an attempt to muddy the waters.
I understand this is not something easily answered with a yes or no which is why most Christians I've asked this to simply stated that they do not know a correct answer. However you have attempted to answer the question, so let me post to you a yes or no question.
Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me, which means that in order to be saved, one must accept Jesus. If someone is born, lives a good life and dies in the jungles of Asia without ever hearing of Jesus and his teaching, is he doomed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs.
I honestly want to know what the Christian faith believes regarding this question, and I have never received a satisfactory answer.

Greetings,

I did answer one close to this. The below is pretty direct if you ask me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not doing this to have fun, I really want to know what Christians believe about this.
Your answer makes no sense to me.
It is established fact that there are peoplewho are born and die without ever hearing of Jesus and his teachings. Do they get into heaven?
That's all I really want to know.
Please answer in plain English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings,

Who goes to Heaven or Hell is God's business, but, In the most simple of terms No one goes to Heaven unles Jesus is their Lord and Saviour. If they do not know Him He does not know them.
Peace and Blessings

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And truely I am not beating around the bush. But I can see why you may think so, just as I thought that the chances of you engaging was just for fun.
I also believe, that my post on the top of pg 23 (guessing we have the same number of posts per page shown?) that is actually empty was supposed to be a simple 'no'. Meaning they are not saved.

Regardless, ...
No one lives a good live. No one is perfect. No one is Good outside of God. One can only be forgiven which is the only way to be perfect. It is not actual perfection per se, it is that God has forgiven one and they are now Perfect in His eyes. All sin is forgotten.

Someone that lives where ever and never hears the Word, is never taught the Word, would not know Jesus and thus would not likely be saved. The problem is that we do not know what happens in the last minutes of someones life and if they are offered salvation even in the last second as they are dieing. If that happens to every one that has ever lived and died then there is no one to represent your subject and the question is purely hypothetical. As hypothetical I would be speculating and speaking for God which I do not want to do.

But again, in short, Yes, they are doomed per your example. That is what the scripture teaches. Just remember the first part of your example is broken. One can not live a good life outside of God.

Peace and Blessings

 

[Rob9874]

You guys live your life on faith every day. We have faith that the cook at the restaurant washed his hands after going to the bathroom, and isn't giving us Hepatitus. We have faith that cell phones don't cause brain tumors after 30 years of use. We have no way to prove that yet, but we rely on faith. You have faith that evolution happened. You have faith that the Big Bang happened. You have faith that the universe is 4.5 billion years old. My point? Not everything you believe is based on pure, proveable fact.

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Southpark points out how ridiculous Mormonism is: Find and watch, Episode: Season 7: All About Mormons. I wish I could find a link to the entire episode but so far no luck. Here is a small part of it at the end:
LINK


What mormons believe cartoon:
LINK

Now finally if your a christian and you believe mormonism is obviously ridiculous please take the time to read the following completely by Sam Harris:

Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from religious believers insisting that I am wrong not to believe in God. Invariably, the most unpleasant of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally believe that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. Please accept this for what it is: the testimony of a man who is in a position to observe how people behave when their faith is challenged. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

Greetings,

Um, I kind of stopped there. He is attacking some unknown people that he interacts with because they are attacking. As soon as he starts calling names he looses credibility. And if he thinks this is how Christians are, how does he view mohammadans that kill 100's of people every day in our time?

Sam Harris? Don't know him and he does not speak for me and any other number of people that are Christians and could care little or not at all about someone like him or another attacking, detracting, or speaking of Christianity in a bad lite or critically, etc.

Peace and Blessings

 

[piasabird]

I have found that people can be Christians, and still are imperfect anyway. Such is life. You can not fault a person for being imperfect. Imperfection goes with being human. I never met a perfect Athiest either. Does it mean if an athiest admits he believes in something that he is somehow a liar? I dont think so. He is just human.

 

[ch33zw1z]

/enter thread for pic only

 

[Macattak1]

Thanks. I struggled with that a lot. A whole lot. Till I was 27. (I'm almost 30 now)

What really got me over it was the understanding of the "default" condition. That would be God, in perfect grace, goodness, purity, and wisdom. It didn't take me long to realize that take anyone - even a baby, and grow that in the environment and the baby will soon be the only source of selfisness in that environment. From a young age a baby learns to care only for himself - plus - this was done already - in the garden of eden - this test was performed - and man knew inherently how to disobey God.

So my conclusion was that no one could ever make a claim to 100% purity - and the kingdom of heaven is unblemished. Nevermind yet the idea of original sin, but one small white lie will disqualify you - it says more about our character than we are willing to acknowledge.

So the only other alternative to God's kingdom is a place where God never ventures. If God is our only source of light and hope, hell need not be anything special - it only has to be a place void of hope.


One other thing - if you believe God created us, what is the purpose? This is why no other religion makes sense - they all say that a superior being created us - yet we have to work to attain paradise ourselves - so they in essensce believe that God created us for our own purpose - Do you build a computer, or go buy a dog, for its own sake?

Christ's first love is His glory - and thats why we were created - to glorify Him. So any value we have is attributed to us from Him. We have none of our own. This is not a concept that the world can accept easily.

So from our perspective it seems that its drastic that a baby will be condemned before it has a chance to defend itself, but if we consider our value is only what is attributed to us by our Lord, and worthless otherwise, this idea is not as unbelievable as it sounds.

To the cynics out there I must make no sense. But as quoted earlier, the Bible should always run counter to the world. I call on other believers here to back me up on this or rebuke me if needed.

Greetings,

I think you have said it very well. It is difficult to put words to something so large as salvation. What ever we write we/others could always double it with additional very valuable points.

As you said. Christianity is the only religion where God is all powerful, and man is powerless and incapable of saving himself. Christianity is the only religion where God sent Himself down to live as we do so that we can not accuse Him of not knowing what it is like down here. And then He allowed Himself to pay the wages of sin for everyone He would save.

And that is very hard to understand and accept. Mostly because we want to be self - reliant, powerful, controlling, protecting, wise, etc. Our self does not want to accept a yoke over us no matter how sweet it may taste or how light it is.

Peace and Blessings

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have found that people can be Christians, and still are imperfect anyway. Such is life. You can not fault a person for being imperfect. Imperfection goes with being human. I never met a perfect Athiest either.

I never got the whole "Christians are hypocrites" argument. If my nutritionist says to stay off sugar, then I see him eating a candy bar, I'm not going to get fat all of a sudden because he's a hypocrite. Why does the imperfection of other human beings discredit the religion? Truth is truth. I'm not going to stop believing that sugar makes you fat, regardless of how much sugar other people eat.

Personally, I think it's a cop out because they don't want to live their life by any rules.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Christianity is the only religion where God is all powerful, and man is powerless and incapable of saving himself. Christianity is the only religion where God sent Himself down to live as we do so that we can not accuse Him of not knowing what it is like down here. And then He allowed Himself to pay the wages of sin for everyone He would save.

And that is very hard to understand and accept. Mostly because we want to be self - reliant, powerful, controlling, protecting, wise, etc. Our self does not want to accept a yoke over us no matter how sweet it may taste or how light it is.

This is grossly inaccurate. Christianity may be the only religion where the proclamation of Godhood of the prophet is so strong, but even it isn't and wasn't so entirely. I think this is hard for you to understand, not others, because you have blinders on.

It is highly ironic how similar these views are, yet people fight over them.

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Macattak1

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

4) You subscribe to the Big Bang/Primordial Soup something-out-of-nothing evolutionary view, which requires as much of a leap of faith

Uh, not really. Scientists are always looking for new information. Nothing is infallable. You can subscribe to the Big Bang as the best current explanation for the universe we see while keeping an open mind to the possibility that the theory may need some changes later. There is no faith required.

Greetings,

Maybe there is no faith required. But, just like a movie, one needs to Suspend Disbelief. And I am very thankful that we only do this to the degree that we do with Evolution.

Immagine if the attitude towards Evolution, Big Bang (primo soup and such) were used in other places. Say a court of law where you just accept what just may be the best story. That might be how the innocent murdered another or how the guilty could not have committed a murder.

Or how about in corporate or personal accounting and book keeping, driving cars, building houses and office towers, etc.

It should not be based upon the best story, line, or idea at the time. If Toyota designed the safety of cars upon an idea there would be a lot of dead drivers. One must ignore a lot of evidence when one takes up the Evolution or Primo Soup position. There is a new theory out there gaining ground. Goes something like this. The chances of planet earth occuring as it did with life is say 1 out of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 so naturally, there must be 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so universes out there.

A christian scientist some 30 to 50 years back stated basically that one can design theories and such, but at some time they must be proven true. They can not go on indefinatly as 'theory'. His theory was that when we can measure the radioactive deacay from one heavenly body to another we will find that the decay is the same. That the decay will not be at different stages, etc. This was proven a few decades later to be true. Radioactive decay from one heavenly body to another has been shown to be equal and consistent (same rate). Which indicates that things originated at the same time not spread out over billions or millions of years.

Peace and Blessings

There is no suspension of disbelief. The first step is admitting ignorance, something which no religious person I know of does. They KNOW God created the heavens and the Earth and the Bible provides an explanation for the universe. That's where their inquisition on the subject ends.

To follow your trial analogy, they arrest the bad guy, he claims innocence, and they buy it. Accepting the best story after admitting ignorance is far superior than claiming full knowledge after a single answer.

To rebut your court analogy, that IS how the courts work. Both sides present their argument and the jury takes the witnesses to be credible or not, weighs testimony, and then determines if the burden of proof has been met.

Toyota designs cars based on testing and fact, not on faith. "That pin is weak and prone to breaking under stress, let's redesign it." or "That pin is weak and prone to breaking, if God deems a passenger's time to be up, then He will break it and it is out of our hands."

The reason why radioactive decay shows the planets as being of about the same age is because they are. They were all formed at roughly the same time. All of the planets formed within a few hundred million years of each other from a protoplanetary disk. We see similar structures elsewhere in the universe. We see stars forming, stars in middle age, and stars dying. We can even see the remnants of stars long dead. Certainly the planets were formed at around the same time, but not everything in the heavens was.

Greetings,

I am very ignorant. Ignorant of Science and God/scripture just to name two that matter here.

It is a suspension of disbelief because there are huge problems with what science believes. Reletivity breaks down at a certain point. Strings are things we can Never proove. So there is at least no difference between the two possitions and the varying degrees within both.

That is correct. Juries do not accept the best story. They may accept both stories or neither/none. The fact is that they may accept none. Toyota tests things as your statement indicates. Clearly we are talking about a lot of things that Can Not be prooven and that is not what Toyota does. They take an idea and work with it. They don't just state it, argue it, debate it, and then never proove it. Not with things that matter like safety.

Planets over millions of years? Now we can get into time. A russian scientist showed that the speed of time was changing. Recently, I think in the last 10 years Berkly or Stanford confirmed that time is slowing down.

Further, a huge majority of scientists up till the 20th century were Christian or believed in something very close to the Christian God. Still, a majority of physicists are arguably Christian or believe and accept that their is something that created it to start with. And there are still many Christian scientists and not just those only in Christian science.

God spoke it into existance over 6 24 hour days. The opposite starts out trying to explaine Time, Big Bang, and then Evolution.

Peace and Blessings

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Christianity is the religion that says man is born into sin and has to get into paradise by accepting Jesus. Many, if not most of the other religions believe that man is born pure. He's in until he screws it up with his own sins. Then the work of reattaining it begins.

I would not say that this is an accurate portrayal of other religions. Most religions say that man is flawed and ignorant, with few exceptions e.g. Jesus. The nature of the flaws are interesting, and a consistent part among serious religions is that flaw has to do with the flesh significantly but not exclusively, and includes various lists of specific flaws such as the attractions of lust, greed and anger. There is depth.

Christianity is also not alone in asserting that supplication to God is necessary for best effect. The notion of blind leading blind is trivially sadly applicable. It is impossible by definition for one to attain God's grace by his or her own effort, however it is also incorrect in my understanding to hold yourself worthy of God's grace through cheap means or by default. Here are where challenges arise. The apostles of Jesus had to purify themselves beforehand through some efforts, but once they'd done that and were in the living presence of Jesus, following the book as it was was not the point. Following the living messiah would very clearly be The Way for them.

The point of many religions is not thorough their books to be granted heaven directly, but by behaving well to become ready and more worthy of a potential Grace. It some ways it's not complicated at all. The theory part is for idiots like me to debate with others. The hard part is always the living of the theory.

Greetings,

Christianity is not about behaving well. That is a bi-product of it. Christianity states that man is inherently evil, sinful, spiritually dead, etc.

Peace and Blessings

 

[AntiStatic]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Yeah, impressing HotChic obviously isn't going to get you laid - she's Christian!

Obviously you have never met a catholic school girl lol.

_____________________________________

Religion is a crutch for weak minded people.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

Christianity is not about behaving well. That is a bi-product of it. Christianity states that man is inherently evil, sinful, spiritually dead, etc.

Peace and Blessings

Greetings,

I find my mind getting a bit irritated with all this, which is by definition sinful, so I'm going to take a break. Before doing that, I'm going to beg the pardon of any and all that I might have misunderstood and misrepresented, and sincerely wish you all well.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

I am very ignorant. Ignorant of Science and God/scripture just to name two that matter here.

It is a suspension of disbelief because there are huge problems with what science believes. Reletivity breaks down at a certain point. Strings are things we can Never proove. So there is at least no difference between the two possitions and the varying degrees within both.

That is correct. Juries do not accept the best story. They may accept both stories or neither/none. The fact is that they may accept none. Toyota tests things as your statement indicates. Clearly we are talking about a lot of things that Can Not be prooven and that is not what Toyota does. They take an idea and work with it. They don't just state it, argue it, debate it, and then never proove it. Not with things that matter like safety.

Planets over millions of years? Now we can get into time. A russian scientist showed that the speed of time was changing. Recently, I think in the last 10 years Berkly or Stanford confirmed that time is slowing down.

Further, a huge majority of scientists up till the 20th century were Christian or believed in something very close to the Christian God. Still, a majority of physicists are arguably Christian or believe and accept that their is something that created it to start with. And there are still many Christian scientists and not just those only in Christian science.

God spoke it into existance over 6 24 hour days. The opposite starts out trying to explaine Time, Big Bang, and then Evolution.

Peace and Blessings

Relativity doesn't break down at any point. It works perfectly (or so every test we have ever come up with says) in the realm in which it is applicable. Quantum field theory also works perfectly in its own realm. I think what you are trying to say is that while QFT works for everything not gravity, and GR works for gravity, they actually disagree when you try to get them to work together (ie, there is no quantum theory for gravity yet). Okay, so this is true, but it doesn't invalidate either theory. The fact that your computer works shows that QFT works. The fact that GPS works shows that GR is correct. Any all-encompassing theory must look exactly like GR when dealing with only gravity, and must look exactly like QFT when dealing with everything else.

Have you ever heard of the blind men and the elephant? One man touches its leg and says it's a tree, another man touches its tail and says it's a rope. While neither of them got that they were really touching an elephant, it's still true that an elephant's leg feels like a tree, and an elephant's tail still feels like a rope. What GR and QFT say is that while there may be a trunk that we still haven't found, we can be sure that there's a leg and a tail that feel like a tree and a rope, and whatever we find that is bigger than what we know must still retain these properties.

You are mistaking belief with knowledge. There are some problems with what science DOESN'T understand. The things we do understand have no real problems. You can use Newton's laws to calculate what angle to aim your cannon such you hit an enemy ship, you can use GR to figure out a timing offset for your GPS sattelites, etc. Those things work. How did life evolve? What happened before the Big Bang (although whether or not you can even ask that question is up for debate)? All of those things are things which we don't understand. There is no belief involved. We just don't know. We can make educated guesses based on what we do know, but we always know those guesses are open to change and refinement.

Short of inventing a time machine to go back in time we can't definitively prove what happened in the past unless the evidence persists. Some of it does. We can see that the universe was all in thermal contact (ie, everything was touching everything else) at one point. We can always look for more evidence left behind and add to our knowledge. It's not like scientists make claims and never attempt to prove them. There are plenty of theory papers written which don't hold much weight until an experimentalist comes along and verifies them with real data. It happens all the time. There are of course many theory papers that are shown to be inaccurate through experiment. Not many scientists will argue for a theory with no experimental backing. Even Einstein's theories received much skepticism until there was experimental verification.

The main problem I have with the christian explanation of the universe is the lack of interest in asking any sort of questions at all. If a person doesn't know, God did it. However, of late even the Cathloic church has recognized the big bang and now christian explanations are largely starting to incorporate scientific results in their interpretations. What seems to be happening is christians say: "that's it!", then a scientist comes along with some evidence for a different series of events which is quite compelling, so the christian will say "oh yeah, so that happened, but god did the rest!" until another scientist comes along...

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Since you can't read, I'll say it again. This belongs on private messages as it is way off topic, but here are you answers anyway. At least you had the balls, still lacking in the intelligence though.

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,

Since you went in the direction you did, I will point out some basics that you already know, but he and others may not.

Since I went in the direction I did? Yes, by all means. Pardon me for defending my religion.
You are defending your self, not your religion. Christ stands on His own and gets no assistance by my defence. He does not need me to defend Him.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Mormanism is much like other religions of man. Made up by man with mans heart, pride, ego, wisdom, etc. all added to create something new. Of course, there is nothing new.
Mormanism, JW, 7th day, Catholicism, and others do not have the Rosetta stone and are not "The way" let alone "The only way".

Mormanism includes much that is good. But the sin that is mixed in with it is what makes it rotten to the core just like all of 'mans' religions. One does not need mans religion to be saved. One only needs the Word.

First off, you see those red squiggly lines that show up under a word? That means you spelled something wrong. Mormonism has two o's, not an a.
Nope, no sqigely lines. And yes, I spell poorly. Not done to offend anyone. Neither is my lazyness in spell checking ment to offend

And you're correct. It made by a man. His name was Christ. By all means, mock his religion all you wish. Doesn't affect me.
Jesus was God and never ceased to be God. I do not pull Him down to my level to elevate myself

Secrecy

Sacred I believe would be a better term.
No, secrecy. Cult secrecy. Handshakes, can not learn more till you accept what they have taught you thus far, against the rules to see family while on ones mission, all sorts of secret things. I believe it was Jefferson? that said we need to end secret societies and such. They have no place in this new country.

Living Prophets

Yeah, what the hell. Why would we have prophets today like they did years ago. That makes no sense.
Because, the Revelation is complete. There is still more learning and understanding to be gained. But the Word is complete. A living prophet? Who are they? Where are they? What are their names? Can you tell us or is it a secrete. Are they out teaching the People or just Mormans? Have they ever been wrong? If they have been wrong then that is the definition of a False Prophet and we know what we are to do with them don't we? And yes, they are wrong all the time.

Living Prophets infalibility

Living prophets are people just like anyone else. Anyone who would make such a claim is an idiot. Glad it's you and not me.
See abovel. The prophets of God are not wrong. They teach what God gives them so how could they be wrong? Believing that they can be wrong shows that the Morman prophets are not real prophets. What have the prophets prophecised in the last 100 years? Before that? What has any Morman prophet ever prophecised?

Living Prophets and continuing revelation

Yet again, why would his church today resemble his church in ancient times. What kind of unchanging God would do that?
?

Who Jesus is and who his brother is

Hmm. Lucifer fell from Heaven. Who lives in Heaven? God and his children. What would that make Lucifer? I know it's tough, but I think you can put it together.
Satan is not Jesus' brother. Angels are tools of God. They have no soul. They are messengers for the most part. They do not have salvation. We were made in God's image. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Not Lucifers and the other angels also.

Virgin birth

Yeah, we believe Mary was a virgin. If you'd like to produce and official statement from the church that says otherwise, feel free to try.
Maybe you can find out what your church has to say on this. I don't need to. Of course, if your not at a high enough level to know further secrets... Mary was a woman and she was chosen to be the virgin monther. She is not a god, eternal, or with out need for the Blood of the Lamb. She is not the mother of God. She simply gave birth to the man.
And on that note Mormanism approves of various kinds of abortion. Abortion = abomination to God.

Polygamy

Yep, we're all going to hell for that one. Get to hang out with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other prophets who practiced it before, since that's where you're consigning them as well.
Maybe going to hell maybe not. But God never endorsed multiple wives. There is not one account of a man that had multiple wives that did not also run into trouble because of that very fact. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were no better than you or I. They were sinners. God is not a respecter of persons. Male or Female, Black or White, etc.

Baptism of Dead

Gee scooter, that's specifically taught in the Bible. What's the problem there?
Where? I is not. The only baptism that matters is the one that it points to 90% of the time. Mormans can not baptize anyone to salvation. Only the baptism of the Holy Spirit can do that. Period

Progression to Godhood

Also specifically taught in the Bible. I'm failing to see the problems here.
Ahh, perhaps a verse or two speak to something like that. But we don't read with the aim of a grenade. We read with the aim being that of a sharp shooter. There is no progression to Godhood. Just like there is no divorce for any reason. Period. But you can read that into the bible to feed the flesh.

Marriage in heaven

Again, the problem here is?
Would it be heaven if you showed up there and your wife went to hell? Personally, I am not sure. Since it would be a rightious act of God then maybe. But I think the story of the 1 wife and 7 husbands paints the clear picture. We are not there for each other, but for the glory of God.

American indians from lehi but no hebrew in them

Oh, I've seen the 'evidence' against that. Funny thing is, there is evidence for it too.

Horses in America

Yes, they'd been in the America's before and 'died out'. Now what are the odds that happened again? What are the odds they were brought over? We know that to the best of our knowledge they didn't exist when the Spaniards came over, but the latest references to them in the Book of Mormon are around 30 B.C., 370 years before the end of the book. Gee, wonder what happened?
Kind of funny. God used many people for the OT and many for the NT. But only one for the book of Morman? And the qualifications sure changed from the OT and NT to the BoM. Proof they were in America and died out?

A bow of steel

And the problem?
Jews did not have steel then.

Scimitars

This weapon dates back to nearly 1600 B.C. by the Egyptians. Even if that wasn't the case, the term scimitar was probably the closest match in English to the type of weapon that was used. So yet again, what's the problem?
Scimitars in Egypt 1600 BC? Proof? How about Islam ~500 AD.

Silk

Explanations would really help your cause here. First reference to silk was while they were still in the Middle East, which was not uncommon. They knew how to make it, they used it. What's the problem?
There was no silk in the Americas.

Early centuries being the Morman church and not the Catholic (Roman) church

What does that have to do with anything?

Same errors in the Book of Morman as in the KJV

Which would be??
Proof of simply copy paste. Linguistics problems galore.

No historical or achealogical evidence.

Evidence
I will check it out. Who wrote it? Morman? Should be tons of others right? How many detractors? Quality of writer v/s detractors?

It is better just to follow the Word of God and leave all other books alone.

If the Word of God was in one book alone, that would be fine. Seeing as you have no right to tell God how many books he can and can't have, I'd say that's a bad stance to take.
Ahhh, but one can be saved by any part of the Word. Best to stay away from BoM due to all the challenges that surround it. Those don't seem to exist with the other books?

Peace and Blessings

Yeah, whatever.
You would be serving the BoM so much better if you cleaned up the attitude.

Peace and Blessings (may you get them from the OT and NT no matter the errors in translation. It won't come and it can't come from the BoM per God's very word.)

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Christianity is the only religion where God is all powerful, and man is powerless and incapable of saving himself. Christianity is the only religion where God sent Himself down to live as we do so that we can not accuse Him of not knowing what it is like down here. And then He allowed Himself to pay the wages of sin for everyone He would save.

And that is very hard to understand and accept. Mostly because we want to be self - reliant, powerful, controlling, protecting, wise, etc. Our self does not want to accept a yoke over us no matter how sweet it may taste or how light it is.

This is grossly inaccurate. Christianity may be the only religion where the proclamation of Godhood of the prophet is so strong, but even it isn't and wasn't so entirely. I think this is hard for you to understand, not others, because you have blinders on.

It is highly ironic how similar these views are, yet people fight over them.

Greetings,

Show me another religion. Then I will believe and accept it. But I have found none.
Not a case of Blinders, a case of never seen or heard.

Peace and Blessings

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
Peace and Blessings (may you get them from the OT and NT no matter the errors in translation. It won't come and it can't come from the BoM per God's very word.)

:laugh:

You keep telling yourself that, cause I know God's word never said any such thing.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
You keep beating around the bush and throwing in unrelated verses in what seems to me an attempt to muddy the waters.
I understand this is not something easily answered with a yes or no which is why most Christians I've asked this to simply stated that they do not know a correct answer. However you have attempted to answer the question, so let me post to you a yes or no question.
Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me, which means that in order to be saved, one must accept Jesus. If someone is born, lives a good life and dies in the jungles of Asia without ever hearing of Jesus and his teaching, is he doomed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs.
I honestly want to know what the Christian faith believes regarding this question, and I have never received a satisfactory answer.

The reason you haven't and won't get a satisfactory answer is that there isn't one single thing that Christians believe on this.

Here are a few options:
1. They will be as though they never were
2. They will go to hell
3. They will go to heaven
4. They will go to heaven if they followed God's law as they were able understood it inherently (basically, the good person argument)
5. Build your own answer