wow, aren't we a little edgy here. "Nobody's perfect" is a common saying--something we need to realize in order to get along with others, and we accept it generally in society. Yep, it's up to you. You have to judge whether the Bible is something that is real and therefore you have a lot to think about and decide on, or if it is just a bunch of made up stories you can take what you will and toss the rest aside. I'm not trying to make a decision for you--I'm just trying to show that it is not easy to just toss the Bible aside as irrelevant or made up. People really lack the notion of God's holiness. If God is perfectly holy, then nothing short of someone who is completely righteous can be in the presence of God (heaven). So we have to be cleaned up to do so. Sure, we could try to clean ourselves up, but that's like telling a 2-year-old to give himself a bath. He won't clean himself up much--and he won't realize he needs any more cleaning. So we have to let someone better and wiser than us do the cleaning so we can be in His presence. Sure we are born separate from God, but God chooses to be merciful on whoever he wants. He can do that because He is God. I was showing that in the Bible, God has chosen to be merciful on children with some consistency. This is not because children are "worthy" of getting into heaven, it is what God chooses. I guess we are at an impasse because after I thought about this a long time, I had to leave it to God to be just in His judgement, and you haven't made any such decision yourself.
Dan Hi Again, Something to ponder: you say in the bible he is consistent with looking out for children....its one thing to read it and another to witness it...I say the consistancy begins with and ends with the bible. It would be much easier to be accepting of these stories/beliefs if they were actually demonstrated in this world...if you can only read about it then I say its safe to call it fiction.
Yeah, it makes me edgy. Why beat around the bush if you don't want to answer a question? And it makes me doubly edgy because I'm not used to that kind of evasion when the debate is with you, dan. There are some others in this forum from whom it wouldn't surprise me. I guess I expect higher standards from you. My real problem with all doctrined religions, "one true paths" or whatever you want to call them is this: They all depend on the fact that people have to be exposed to the information. Do you really believe that you would have come up with the idea of christianity and having to accept some man who lived and died long ago as your savior from your "sins" if you had never been exposed to the information? It's up to each person to make the choice of whether or not to accept jesus as our savior, but first we have to be lucky enough to learn that that's our choice? That's why I can't believe there could possibly be ONE true path. Not everyone is going to receive the same information. So maybe we ARE at an impasse, because I don't see how it's "just" to expect people who may not be exposed to the information, to accept jesus and ask for forgiveness, and if they don't they get to remain separate from god or burn in hell or whatever it is that's supposed to be so horrible if you don't follow the ONE true path.
Since you're looking at from your perspective, it may be a normal thing for you. Actually, having to make every decision in a tenth of a second isn't what I was getting at. Since you've been in white water, you would know that every decision does not have to be made fast; it just has to be made. If you are approaching a rock, you might see it from yards away, but you'll only hit it if you can't decide which way you're going to go around it. That is not really the way it is. You will be condemning yourself. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:37, KJV). Actually, it's like someone giving you a blender and telling you not to stick your hand in it. Your choice. Yes. But, it probably won't happen due to the propensity of people to stick their hand in the blender. The one true path is not to stick your hand in the blender.
No, tony. The main difference is that with the use of a little logic you would know that sticking your hand in the blender is just plain stupid, unless you really WANT a mutilated hand. There is no logical reason for someone to cease being a freind because you used their blender gift to make a drink they don't like. And it's completely illogical to give someone free will, if you don't want them to use it FREELY. Even blenders have more than one true path, tony. If the only thing you ever do with your blender is just not stick your hand in it, then what's the point of having a blender?
My point was that because it is a common saying that is widely accepted, it tells us something about human nature. Something always seems to get the best of us, it is just different depending on who we are. I put that out because I didn't want to expand on humanity's imperfections at that time. This question is a common one, and it seems unfair, but we don't really know how God will judge people who have never heard before. Maybe He gives those people a chance in the afterlife sometime before the new heaven and earth. Maybe He somehow already knows how someone would choose when they die. Who knows? The only thing that is really stated is that if you know what the Bible says and you reject it, then you reject God and are separated from Him in the afterlife.
Well, I agree that nobody's perfect. But it was still a hypothetical question. Kind of like: if you knew you couldn't fail at whatever you attempted, what would you attempt? You don't have to expand on the fact that it's simply not possible to win ALL your gambles to answer the question hypothetically. And you don't have to expand on all of humanities imperfections to answer MY question hypothetically. Ok. Well I'm separate now as far as I can tell and always have been. And the more I learn about this god, the less I like the idea of being with him. Especially when the vast majority of people who are "saved" are people like Loone or Tony1. If heaven is full of people like that, then I definitely don't want to be there. God can have them, and they can have god, and I'll just do fine with all the other bad, bad people who refuse to be scared into submission. You seem like a person I could get along with, but you couldn't outweigh the masses.
Well, to answer your question, living the perfect life by God's standards in the Bible includes accepting His Son, so even if you do live a perfect life, and reject Jesus, you are rejecting God as well. So He lets you be apart from Him. Your question kind of assumed that heaven was something separate from God. I guess quite a few people think that to some extent. It goes against what the Bible states. Thinking that heaven is somehow a nice place where God lives but you can get away from Him and take a walk or something is not at all the Biblical heaven. We are far more aware of how God sustains everything, and how His presence is everywhere in heaven. You don't get to take a break away from God unless you go to hell. However, with all this said, it should be noted that God made <i>everything</i> good that you experience here on Earth, and He promises that heaven is a better place than here. So if God is truly the Creator, He would know what we need and what we would enjoy. It doesn't matter if the group is affiliated with any entity whatsoever--there will always be people with egos, people who think that their way is so great that no one could possibly have valid reasons for believing otherwise. This is true in any movement. Further, if you're anything like me, most of them don't have anything interesting to talk about, and retread the same ground, tell the same jokes, and don't understand an intelligent conversation which reaches slightly beyond popular culture. However, there is one good reason to desire to be in heaven--God Himself. If God made all the universe, and gave us free will, and understands <i>everything</i>, then He would be the best person to have an intelligent conversation with. And He doesn't seem to be one to ruin the joy of discovery either. Why would He want to ruin the surprise He made? So anyway, don't think of wanting to go to heaven in order to be around a myriad of unintelligent gullible babblers, but instead think of the presence of someone so intelligent that He created sentient beings and a universe for them to explore.
Justice Dan’s point makes sense and such a heaven and a deity are very attractive, but the key concept that needs to be emphasized is the need to accept the Jesus as the savior since according to the Christian view that is the ONLY way to gain everlasting life in heaven. Even if someone leads the most perfect life, at a standard far higher than any Christian, if that someone does not recognize Jesus then that perfect life is doomed to eternal damnation. The issue I would have here is one of justice. The punishment for such a relatively minor intellectual choice is so overwhelmingly drastic and unfair. The Christian god in this case does not seem be infinitely just as the religion would have us believe. Cris
I think we are in need of a definition of the word "perfect" in this sense. If there is no God, then living a perfect life would be showing love and compassion to everyone, helping those in need, giving to worthy causes, and whatever other humanitarian things you could do in life--and that's all. What else would you need to do? If no God invested anything, then no God needs anything back. However, if God as described in the Bible does exist, then He has a major investment in everyone. For someone to reject Him dying for us would be like a man saying he would like to marry a woman, but he wants her daughter to be kept in an orphanage. He is still rejecting her. It isn't punishment, it is the consequence of being separate from God. I posted a more lengthy message on this in another thread.
The only way that could have been funnier, Dan ... The only way that could have been funnier, Dan, was if I'd been really high on mushrooms when I read it. Of course, then I would be a little suspect of my perception, for that's mindbogglingly hilarious. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx for the sideache, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Still unjust Dan, Yes I guess, but what we really mean here is morality, or a way to discriminate between good and bad. Well no not really. That’s a somewhat pedestrian and limited view of a perfect life. But a more precise definition depends on the objectives. Either morality is for the benefit of humanity or it is for the benefit of the deity. Each perspective results in very different actions. The non-religious perspective is concerned with species survival, reduction of suffering, and happiness. A theistic centered approach requires voluntary submission to an authoritarian doctrine, with the end result being to the profit of the deity. This is very strange wording. I think you have a problem considering and appreciating the concept of no God. The issue of investment is mute when there is no God. Your use of the term ‘investment’ is appropriate and emphasizes Christian morality where humanity exists purely for the profit of God. Profit is the usual expectation after making an investment. I think you are capable of clearer thinking than this. You must agree this is gibberish. Firstly the choice to die was his to make, but his death really has no meaning since he is immortal and cannot die so there was no death and he would have known that. The illusion of a god dying for us is used purely to invoke human emotions since we can relate to real death. But to a god who cannot die there was no sacrifice and hence no meaning to the crucifixion. From the perspective of God, those who decide not to worship him (i.e. worship = profit) represent that part of his investment that did not yield a dividend and are therefore expendable. In other words, he doesn’t care what happens to those who won’t conform to his desires. But from the perspective of humans hell can only be perceived as a punishment for disobeying an authoritarian regime. The effect is still massively unjust. Ok but that is a rather unkind and lazy response. Could you please state which thread and page or please summarize your viewpoint again. Cris
Perfect would be, in a Christian def, to have never committed or thought any sins. I do believe that a perfect man can go to heaven without belief in Jesus. At least according to the bible. I don't have any specific passages in mind but I do have some vague passages that go the other way. If you have any passages for your point they would be greatly appreciated dan or tony.
FA_Q2, No. Think about what you are saying. The essence of Christianity is a belief in the Jesus as the savior. The objective here is everlasting life in a heavenly place, and the way to achieve that is to accept the Christ. The Jesus is the doorway; there is no other way other than through him. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Now, if you are talking about another religion such as Judaism or Islam, then yes leading a moral life, where morality here is the authoritarian form defined by those religions, then you can achieve heaven without any belief in the Jesus. Every religion imposes a set of rules to be followed in order for you to achieve, heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, etc. In Christianity a belief in the Christ is essential, and it makes no difference how good you are if you do not follow this rule. Remember that ‘sin’ is a religious term and means disobedience of the rules defined by the particular deity, i.e. religious morality. Cris
I agree upon reading this over that a bunch of pronouns got mixed up in that sentence. However, Jesus dying on the cross was not simply an act to pull our heartstrings. It was Him taking on the wrath of a God that demands justice for wrongs against Him. This cannot make sense to anyone who doesn't already believe that He has total authority over man, and is justified in doing as He will with a rebellious creation. God doesn't owe us anything, yet He is necessary for our well-being. If you want to argue along the lines that He owes us His power so that we can live in comfort, you aren't going to get anywhere. You might as well ask Bill Gates to support you the rest of your life for really no reason whatsoever--and call him a dictator if he asked you to do something in return. The sustaining power of God is like the sustaining power of the Earth and sun. Without the Earth's atmosphere, food, water, and other material, we would suffer. Without the heat of the sun, we would freeze. Being outside of the sustaining power of God is like being outside the sustaining power of the Earth--only moreso and forever. Does God owe you His sustaining power for eternity if you reject Him? You could argue that because He made beings that could feel pain, that He should make sure they never do--or at least not to the amount that hell promises. You could argue that because He made beings that were so unable to avoid doing things displeasing to God that He should have an obligation to protect them from their own choices. But choices have to have consequences or there is no justice.
Dan, Again he could not and did not die. Let’s look at this from a different perspective. The bible emphasizes God’s sacrifice of his son, but for a sacrifice to be in any way meaningful there has to be a permanent loss. God suffered no such loss since the resurrection returned his son after a couple of days, and with his Omniscience he would have known this. I cannot see that God lost anything or suffered in any way. The John verse which states that God so loved man that he gave his only son, is meaningless since he gave nothing. If I were to give my only son knowing that he could never return then that would be a real and tragic sacrifice. But that cannot apply to immortals and hence a claim of a sacrifice is fraudulent. But this can only make sense if there was a real sacrifice. And there was none. Also, isn’t a display of wrath somewhat infantile for a being with alleged infinite power? The portrayal of a wrathful God is another ancient mechanism for invoking fear in ignorant and gullible would-be disbelievers of past centuries. Then how did anyone become a Christian? Are you implying that I cannot understand the concepts because I am, what, lacking in intellect, my IQ is too low, or you are incapable of explaining properly, or is it because you are facing an insoluble paradox and cannot talk your way out of it? The rest of your post was very familiar to a sermon; the effort is wasted on me. Please don’t become a Loone. Cris
You must not believe that God became fully man then. If what the Bible says is true, and God <i>did</i> become fully human, and get nailed to a cross, then what was fully man would die. Resurrection was not dependent on Jesus, it was dependent on the Father. Another aspect of God raised Jesus from the dead in the same way the Bible says every Christian will be raised physically later on. The total authority of Creator over creation must be assumed from their positions. A creator may do as he wishes with his creation--an artist may do whatever he wishes with his own painting. Many here, though, do not assume that this authority is in place when criticizing the Bible, and therefore assume the creation is a museum piece with someone else fingerpainting all over it without authority. If God has no authority, then His wrath is as unjustified as a two-year-old's temper tantrum. But if He does have complete authority, then it is His game and He makes the rules.
*Originally posted by felix No, tony. The main difference is that with the use of a little logic you would know that sticking your hand in the blender is just plain stupid, unless you really WANT a mutilated hand. There is no logical reason for someone to cease being a freind because you used their blender gift to make a drink they don't like. And it's completely illogical to give someone free will, if you don't want them to use it FREELY.* A masterpiece of no sense. You've got free will. You can FREELY stick your hand in the blender, even if you DON'T want a mutilated hand. What you want is to stick your hand in the blender and ALSO not get your hand mutilated. It doesn't work that way. Get used to it. * If the only thing you ever do with your blender is just not stick your hand in it, then what's the point of having a blender? * You're stating the point without seeing it. The one true path in the garden of Eden was NOT to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That means that they could have eaten of the millions or billions of the other trees, including the tree of life, as part of the one true path. All of humanity, one at a time, falls for Satan's lie, that the forbidding of ONE tree out of millions is an infringement of "true" liberty. Well, I've got news for you, you just infringed on your OWN liberty by restricting your attention to the ONE thing you CAN'T do, instead of the MILLIONS of things you CAN do. Use the blender for making thousands of different kinds of juice AND keep your hand out of it. OR, jam both hands in it, so you won't be able to make ANY juice. Your choice. [*Originally posted by FA_Q2 I do believe that a perfect man can go to heaven without belief in Jesus. At least according to the bible. I don't have any specific passages in mind but I do have some vague passages that go the other way. If you have any passages for your point they would be greatly appreciated dan or tony.* Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (John 11:25, KJV). Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6, KJV). *Originally posted by Cris Every religion imposes a set of rules to be followed in order for you to achieve, heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, etc.* Every religion other than Christianity, that is. Every other religion provides a means by which you can fool yourself. Christianity tells you the way it really is. It should be obvious that there can be only one truth and a whole bunch of lies. If I have a dollar in my pocket, then that is the one truth. Meditating and visualizing two dollars is a lie. Believing or convincing yourself that there is no such thing as money is a lie. Believing that pockets are maya is a lie. Believing that the person who has the dollar is deluded is a lie. Etc. *Remember that ‘sin’ is a religious term* It's just ordinary English. It just means missing the point. *but for a sacrifice to be in any way meaningful there has to be a permanent loss.* Why? The sacrifice is the shedding of blood and the attendant loss of life. The fact that he could raise himself from death after dying does not remove the death. It simply shortens the duration of it. *But that cannot apply to immortals* He wasn't an immortal. Immortal doesn't mean "died and came back to life." It means "not subject to death." He was subject to death... But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:7,8, KJV). *Are you implying that I cannot understand the concepts because I am, what, lacking in intellect, my IQ is too low, or you are incapable of explaining properly, or is it because you are facing an insoluble paradox and cannot talk your way out of it? * No. No faith, For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2, KJV). or, not enough word of God... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17, KJV).
About Hell: As far as I've known in history, ancient people used fire for cooking mainly. But those ancient peoples couldn't come to the idea of cooking in fire when they had not been able to discover it. Source: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab23 So those primitive people might have seen roasted animals in fields, studied how to produce those fires they'd discovered, tasted the roasted animals and came to think of a powerful force which would be able to produce those fires at an instant. So, no doubt, hell is true.
enton: do you have a disfunctional brain this thread was started in august 2001, and ended the same month, you are addressing someone who has'nt been active since that time. he wont answer you, mind you that proberly how you want it, you made a mistake, with an old post of mine, did'nt you, as I answered back. get yourself a life.
