I decline, not because I cannot show you a religion, but because they are in fact in this age obviously accessible, and your offer of belief is not sincere and I don't want you to heap additional scorn on another religion.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
Originally posted by: 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...
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
I decline, not because I cannot show you a religion, but because they are in fact in this age obviously accessible, and your offer of belief is not sincere and I don't want you to heap additional scorn on another religion.
Yes, that much is clear.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.
This isn't an issue of translation. It's an issue of interpretation.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?
What's to back up? That's like asking someone to "back up" the claim that schizophrenics are insane. It's a virtual tautology. Anyone with a modicum of sense that is presented with the propositions of the Mormon foundation can see plainly that it is totally absurd. At least with Judaism and Christianity there is legitimate history upon which their stories are built. All the Mormons have is the delusional ramblings of Joseph Smith.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.
Originally posted by: Garth
Yes, that much is clear.
This isn't an issue of translation. It's an issue of interpretation.
Try what? We've already established that you're impervious to reason, and the fact What's to back up? That's like asking someone to "back up" the claim that schizophrenics are insane. It's a virtual tautology. Anyone with a modicum of sense that is presented with the propositions of the Mormon foundation can see plainly that it is totally absurd. At least with Judaism and Christianity there is legitimate history upon which their stories are built. All the Mormons have is the delusional ramblings of Joseph Smith.
Man, this really explains a lot about you.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,
Very well communicated. I, unless I read something wrong which I don't think I did, agree with those first 4 paragraphs very much. The following may use words like 'you' but I am not inteding them as attacking.
I can understand your challenge with christians and explanations of the U and apparent lack of interest. But I see the same immage from you. You don't believe unles you can proove it to your self. If you could proove how Jesus walked on water then you would beleive it. But until you can proove it, it remains a fairytale. Perhaps someday someone will figure out what unkown laws, etc. allow this, but not today. So it can not or does not work.
You, as an individual are your beliefe. You believe what you think is appropriate based upon immaterial or unimportant things in relation to who and what you are as an extreamely complex creature. Your eyes are hugely complex compared to anything else. Your brain more so. Your emotions are not programed in, you can be in control of them. You are not run on instinct. Your intellect grows and grows at a phenominal rate. You can think a head to protect yourself from rain or a stock market crash or you can invent things that do not exist yet and anyone can find a use for that invention there after. That you have the ability to question who or what made you and the universe and start making theories and such about it or debate it with me.
The list of why you are nothing like any other creature ever alive is dwarfing. There is no evidence of evolution to support any tie. People are amazed at the universe. Man is infinatly more amazing. I see many that do not believe in God in the position of having to force something just as unbelieveable. Dependent upon Faith or dependent upon Knowledge. There is little difference in the end. And no, Christians do not have to question the impossible. Why would we question the number of grains of sand on all the shores or number of hairs on our head? We would not. Suffice it to say the point God is making is made. The origin or the cause of the origin and the after affects is what we disagree on to some greater or lesser extent.
And evolution then Must come from the 4.5 billion year old earth because there is no god.
There is no evidence of one let alone the 100's or millions of transitionals from what ever to man no matter Leachy made lucy to look this way and that. Now it is Ice man.
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
There is really little difference between you and I. Our tools are just different or the order in which we use them is different.
Peace and Blessings
Originally posted by: Macattak1
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
There is really little difference between you and I. Our tools are just different or the order in which we use them is different.
Peace and Blessings
Originally posted by: Macattak1
There is no evidence of one let alone the 100's or millions of transitionals from what ever to man no matter Leachy made lucy to look this way and that. Now it is Ice man.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
Horner said the team was lucky that water appeared not to have penetrated the femur, leaving it hollow. Water is the usual way that mineralizing compounds creep into ancient skeletons and fossilize them, replacing the biological material and essentially turning it into rock.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
That is precisely what would trouble me if I were a Christian.Originally posted by: HotChic
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
Originally posted by: ThePresence
That is precisely what would trouble me if I were a Christian.Originally posted by: HotChic
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
How can there be no clear-cut answer to such an important question?
I have a big problem with options 1 and 2. Essentially he's being punished for something he had absolutely no way of preventing. He had no chance to change his ways. It's not his fault.
I don't see how options 3 & 4 could work given the above mentioned verse that no one comes to the Father but by me.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I appreciate your honesty.
So how do you reconcile the two seemingly contradictory verses?Originally posted by: HotChic
Originally posted by: ThePresence
That is precisely what would trouble me if I were a Christian.Originally posted by: HotChic
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
How can there be no clear-cut answer to such an important question?
I have a big problem with options 1 and 2. Essentially he's being punished for something he had absolutely no way of preventing. He had no chance to change his ways. It's not his fault.
I don't see how options 3 & 4 could work given the above mentioned verse that no one comes to the Father but by me.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I appreciate your honesty.
Scripture from which some people derive answer #4:
Romans 2:12-16
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
What is this "evidence"? All I see is that some how, there was nothing.. and then there was something.. and it went boom.. And something formed out of the boom.. Of course evolutionist principle is based on that everything had a beginning. So why exactly are they able to accept that the explosive chemicals just suddenly appeared?Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Macattak1
There is no evidence of one let alone the 100's or millions of transitionals from what ever to man no matter Leachy made lucy to look this way and that. Now it is Ice man.
There are more than enough transitional forms to demonstrate that there was a progression from primate to human.
Since there are so many, you wont mind naming several?
Originally posted by: Macattak1
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
Your point? That claim may be true in general, however anyone that sees value in it clearly does not understand evolution.
Then explain what we are missing.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
How can you attempt to apply logical reason to a subject you have absolutely no knowledge about? What grounds to you have for claiming that it is impossible for tissue to be preserved for millions of years?
I did a quick google search and found this article.
Horner said the team was lucky that water appeared not to have penetrated the femur, leaving it hollow. Water is the usual way that mineralizing compounds creep into ancient skeletons and fossilize them, replacing the biological material and essentially turning it into rock.
Key *usual*. There are other methods as well for fossilization. And what are the chances of one of those methods occurring? Pretty darn good if it was millions of years ago.
Originally posted by: Macattak1
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
There are many other dating methods besides C14 that work reliably for time periods much longer than 50,000 years.
Name a reliable one. And before you cover Potassium Argon, you should read first (yes its a Christian website, but are we going to dock fact simply because you don't like what the place stands for? If thats the case, your not better than the other close-minded people.)
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
I believe you are talking about the possibility that the speed of light is slowing down. Even if true, it does not support creationism
Originally posted by: Macattak1
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.
The evidence for evolution and the big bang is so vast that a jury, when presented with all the evidence, would believe both theories beyond a reasonable doubt. Btw, the big bang theory has nothing to do with "primo soup and such".
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Macattak1
Greetings,
Very well communicated. I, unless I read something wrong which I don't think I did, agree with those first 4 paragraphs very much. The following may use words like 'you' but I am not inteding them as attacking.
I can understand your challenge with christians and explanations of the U and apparent lack of interest. But I see the same immage from you. You don't believe unles you can proove it to your self. If you could proove how Jesus walked on water then you would beleive it. But until you can proove it, it remains a fairytale. Perhaps someday someone will figure out what unkown laws, etc. allow this, but not today. So it can not or does not work.
You, as an individual are your beliefe. You believe what you think is appropriate based upon immaterial or unimportant things in relation to who and what you are as an extreamely complex creature. Your eyes are hugely complex compared to anything else. Your brain more so. Your emotions are not programed in, you can be in control of them. You are not run on instinct. Your intellect grows and grows at a phenominal rate. You can think a head to protect yourself from rain or a stock market crash or you can invent things that do not exist yet and anyone can find a use for that invention there after. That you have the ability to question who or what made you and the universe and start making theories and such about it or debate it with me.
The list of why you are nothing like any other creature ever alive is dwarfing. There is no evidence of evolution to support any tie. People are amazed at the universe. Man is infinatly more amazing. I see many that do not believe in God in the position of having to force something just as unbelieveable. Dependent upon Faith or dependent upon Knowledge. There is little difference in the end. And no, Christians do not have to question the impossible. Why would we question the number of grains of sand on all the shores or number of hairs on our head? We would not. Suffice it to say the point God is making is made. The origin or the cause of the origin and the after affects is what we disagree on to some greater or lesser extent.
And evolution then Must come from the 4.5 billion year old earth because there is no god.
There is no evidence of one let alone the 100's or millions of transitionals from what ever to man no matter Leachy made lucy to look this way and that. Now it is Ice man.
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
There is really little difference between you and I. Our tools are just different or the order in which we use them is different.
Peace and Blessings
Okay, first off, I have talked with many Christians about their beliefs and their faith and I've found there are two types. The first is blind and asks no questions. They don't think for themselves and just do things because that's how they're done in the Bible. I don't really have much respect for that type of thinking, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or non-religious at all.
The second type is the type that can articulate their beliefs on a personal level and can provide personally determined reasons for their beliefs. I may not agree with them at all, but I definitely respect the fact that they have at least thought about what they believe and can defend their position. My fiancee is this type and I respect her and her beliefs. I'm glad to see that you are this second type as well. Talking to people like you helps to expand my knowledge and understanding of other opinions and positions. It won't ever convert me, but I enjoy learning regardless. So thanks
I've come across several new insights in this thread which have helped me gain some understanding on how people think and how people see their faith. It's interesting to me to hear the revelations people have come across after thinking about a question of faith for several years.
But back on point, no a tree will never evolve into another life form, but the tree's great great great grandchild (I guess you can call a tree a grand child?) might not be of the exact same type. Maybe a bristlecone pine got cross pollinated with a lodgepole or something. It's a gradual change from generation to generation that builds up that causes a large change, not a metamorphosis into a new species within a single generation.
So C14 dating works only on things that are several thousand years old, but when a bone is fossilized you can date the rock that makes up the fossil, or date the layers around the fossil if it is in a stratified piece of rock.
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: Macattak1
A tree will never evolve into another life form let alone man.
No, a tree isn't going to change into anything else in one generation, but can you say with certainty that a tree's 50,000th descendant formed 200,000 years from now will still be exactly the same kind of tree? Are you sure that it will be anything resembling the same tree when we get to it's 100,000th descendant 400,000 years from now?
A tree is not going to evolve into anything not a tree. Not ever. Not after millions or billions of years.
TRex Soft Tissue? How can that be? Not at millions of years old!
Dunno for sure about this one, but one explanation put forward was some kind of fossilization on a molecular level. We'll know for sure when the researchers release their results I guess. BTW you didn't pick up this tidbit from an amusing little television show called "Creationism in the 21st century" did you? Cuz that's where I saw it. :laugh:
No, I think I heard about it on the radio. You know, we can make fossils ourselves. Can and has been done. But I would be very surprised that someone would come out and state let alone proove that soft tissue from anything could be millions of years old. The leach rate alone would destroy it.
C14 dating? Thrown out because there can not be C14 in anything over 50k years old and certainly not 100k let alone millions. But does not work and refutes so tossed aside.
C14 isn't the end all be all of radioactive dating methods. There's potassium-argon dating which has a LOWER limit of 100,000 years for instance.
You are absolutly right. But, it is the tool...until it stops working for the Old Earth or Evolutionists. When that happens they move onto other things. And when those other things contradict the old thrown out thing it is always because the old thrown out thing was wrong. And dating some thing back 65 to 85 million years ago (TRex) And finding soft tissue for a TRex is a huge problem. Not something that is explained. They are at odds with each other. There is no way that soft tissue could survive 100k years let alone 500k, 1 million, 25 million, or 65+ million. If I did not believe in God I think it would be easier to accept any god before that.
There is really little difference between you and I. Our tools are just different or the order in which we use them is different.
Peace and Blessings
Probably true.
Originally posted by: ThePresence
So how do you reconcile the two seemingly contradictory verses?Originally posted by: HotChic
Originally posted by: ThePresence
That is precisely what would trouble me if I were a Christian.Originally posted by: HotChic
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
How can there be no clear-cut answer to such an important question?
I have a big problem with options 1 and 2. Essentially he's being punished for something he had absolutely no way of preventing. He had no chance to change his ways. It's not his fault.
I don't see how options 3 & 4 could work given the above mentioned verse that no one comes to the Father but by me.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I appreciate your honesty.
Scripture from which some people derive answer #4:
Romans 2:12-16
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Originally posted by: HotChic
The most natural reconciliation is the idea of two different groups of people, one verse applied to each. One to the people who have heard the message and the other to people who haven't.
Honestly though, from my personal perspective, I can't say I have a conclusive thought on it yet. I don't think that the info is sufficiently clear.
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: HotChic
The most natural reconciliation is the idea of two different groups of people, one verse applied to each. One to the people who have heard the message and the other to people who haven't.
Honestly though, from my personal perspective, I can't say I have a conclusive thought on it yet. I don't think that the info is sufficiently clear.
Based on what I perceive to be the general idea of most Christian religions, he will go to hell. There are different denominations that try to stress the idea of "being good" (good works) as something you must do; however, I've always seen these as "bad." There shouldn't be any "forcing" someone to do good things, they should want to.
But since I've read a decent amount of this thread and just never replied... I guess I'll comment a bit.
The one thing that's always bothered me as a Christian has always been other Christians. Back in college, I'd see people on Ash Wednesday with their little skid mark on their forehead talking about how they planned to make dirty with their girlfriend that night. Do they need a mirror? Why even waste their time when they obviously don't care about their actions.
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: HotChic
The most natural reconciliation is the idea of two different groups of people, one verse applied to each. One to the people who have heard the message and the other to people who haven't.
Honestly though, from my personal perspective, I can't say I have a conclusive thought on it yet. I don't think that the info is sufficiently clear.
Based on what I perceive to be the general idea of most Christian religions, he will go to hell. There are different denominations that try to stress the idea of "being good" (good works) as something you must do; however, I've always seen these as "bad." There shouldn't be any "forcing" someone to do good things, they should want to.
But since I've read a decent amount of this thread and just never replied... I guess I'll comment a bit.
The one thing that's always bothered me as a Christian has always been other Christians. Back in college, I'd see people on Ash Wednesday with their little skid mark on their forehead talking about how they planned to make dirty with their girlfriend that night. Do they need a mirror? Why even waste their time when they obviously don't care about their actions.
Isaiah 64:6
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
So yep, good works dont get you to heaven, its your faith.