Not to mention that Jesus is the believers' advocate before the Father, not some Oz-like guy on the other side of the wall in the confessional.
How is faith in God attained?
- Thread starter nds1
- Start date
The first was and is still called the Body of Christ. You will not find it in any history books because it is a spiritual body of believers.
NT written for Rome?
Why would any earthly empire, especially a militaristic one like Rome, produce a religious text that includes the founder teaching absolute pacifism? If Rome designed for itself a religion then it would have made up something like islam or shintoisim a religion that would glorify warfare as the highest service to God that a man could undertake. Rome indeed would have created a religion that made the emperor God on earth.
The last thing any empire on earth would promote is absolute pacifism. Empires need their troops to fight the wars that secure and expand their empire.
But if an empire on earth has a "dangerous" teaching like absolute pacifism gaining popularity in its empire, a teaching that it just can’t quite extinguish by persecution, it has to use another tactic to gain control of that religion and slowly modify it to promote the acceptance of warfare.
It was all out there, not compiled, but it was all out there. The roman authorities would probably have gained most of it already. Its basic intelligence to obtain the writings of subversive groups.
And i do not understand your last question. It does not make sense to me?
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
And you have estimated that this body of born again believers comprises of around 50% of the people who claim to be Christian "adherents." I think this is a very generous estimation and maybe 30% seems more on the mark, if that.
So the true church right now may be composed of 6 million to possibly 1 billion people, not billions as you stated before.
IAC, I looked up "Born Again" like you asked me to and found that everyone seems to have a different meaning for what it is.
Please tell me your opinion of what it means to be born again. Does it involve a vision or experience such as speaking in tongues? Can it occur without an experience?
"Born Again" isn't something you can just look up in the dictionary, like you seem to think it is. Neither is "baptism of the Holy Ghost."
You should read the Bible, baptism of the Holy Ghost is immersion, so to speak, in the Spirit, also known as annointing, it happens to believers for a special purpose.
By the way nds1, there's about nineteen million google entries about the things Biblical which you incessantly jabber for answers about.
Adstar said:
Define "reject the Messiah Jesus." Muslims accept Jesus as "The Messiah", as written the Quran, so please be more specific with this claim.
Also, in Hinduism there are have been 9 great incarnations of God, or 9 great "avatars." The tenth, the Kalki Avatar, should be arriving in, say, some odd thousands of years. Jesus, is not one of the ten great Avatars, however he is "accepted" by them as a minor one. Does this acceptance of Jesus as a "minor Avatar" grant them heavenly access?
Also, Jesus doesn't even make the Hindu top 25 avatar list.
Adstar said:
Not only do I NOT admire them, I despise them and are utterly disgusted by basically all Catholic "Leaders." To me they are worse then most murders, adulterers, etc.
Nor do I desire to defraud people. It is a disgusting practice. I was simply pointing out that the early Catholoc Church leaders did.
Yeah, NO KIDDING!!! THAT IS THE POINT!!!
There are 19 million entries and they all say something different. So which one do you think is true?
1. To be saved - To accept Jesus as your personal savior
2. To be born again - To have some kind of divine experience such as a vision or an extreme feeling of God's presence, sometimes accompanied by speaking in tongues
3. To be baptized with the Holy Ghost - To have some kind of divine experience such as a vision or an extreme feeling of God's presence, sometimes accompanied by speaking in tongues
Are these definitions accurate?
Read the New Testament nds1, it will save you asking all these questions, again and again, and it will save us having to listen to your questions of ignorance, but it's probably more that it's feigned ignorance, don't be such a goof.
IAC, quit your BS and your evading tactics. Stop calling me a 6th grader and a goof, and answer the question. If you don't know, simply say, "I don't know." Don't worry God won't strike you down with a bolt of lighting.
In any case, below are posted all the scripture which mentions the terms:
There is one passage in John which the term "born again" is based on:
John 3:1-5
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."
Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
IAC, if someone accepts Jesus as their Savior are they automatically Born Again or Born of the Spirit? As you can see this passage, the only one which mentions "born again," is vague and can be interpreted in thousands of ways, hence the thousands of different opinion on it.
IAC, the verse is right there in front of your face. Tell me your interpretation of it. That is, if you even have one.
You keep saying how ignorant I am and how much of a goof I am when I honestly don't know how to interpret the above verse. Talk 10 different reverands and you will get ten different answers.
I'm not asking you for the "one answer," because obviously THERE IS NONE IN THIS CASE. I am asking you for YOUR OPINION, AND YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF on what being "born again" is.
Are you born again immediately upon having a mental belief of Jesus in your head? Some sects would say yes. Many, no. What is your opinion?
So you have to have some kind of vision or experience like speaking in tongues to be born again? Some sects say yes. Others no.
There are three mentions of being baptized with the Holy Spirit/Ghost in the NT:
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Mathew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The last passage seems to suggest that speaking in tongues is required to know you really have been baptized with the Holy Ghost. Is it IAC? Some Christians say yes. Others no.
Did Jesus ever speak in tongues? Maybe. The Bible doesn't say.
The last passage says those people were "filled with the Holy Ghost." Are there levels of how much the Holy Ghost can fill you? When you are born again are you, say, 35% filled with the Holy Ghost and then when you are baptised in the Holy Ghost are you 100% filled?
Of course the last passage never mentions a "baptism."
IAC, how about a little analysis, don't be such a goof.
In any case, below are posted all the scripture which mentions the terms:
There is one passage in John which the term "born again" is based on:
John 3:1-5
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."
Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
IAC, if someone accepts Jesus as their Savior are they automatically Born Again or Born of the Spirit? As you can see this passage, the only one which mentions "born again," is vague and can be interpreted in thousands of ways, hence the thousands of different opinion on it.
IAC, the verse is right there in front of your face. Tell me your interpretation of it. That is, if you even have one.
You keep saying how ignorant I am and how much of a goof I am when I honestly don't know how to interpret the above verse. Talk 10 different reverands and you will get ten different answers.
I'm not asking you for the "one answer," because obviously THERE IS NONE IN THIS CASE. I am asking you for YOUR OPINION, AND YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF on what being "born again" is.
Are you born again immediately upon having a mental belief of Jesus in your head? Some sects would say yes. Many, no. What is your opinion?
So you have to have some kind of vision or experience like speaking in tongues to be born again? Some sects say yes. Others no.
There are three mentions of being baptized with the Holy Spirit/Ghost in the NT:
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Mathew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The last passage seems to suggest that speaking in tongues is required to know you really have been baptized with the Holy Ghost. Is it IAC? Some Christians say yes. Others no.
Did Jesus ever speak in tongues? Maybe. The Bible doesn't say.
The last passage says those people were "filled with the Holy Ghost." Are there levels of how much the Holy Ghost can fill you? When you are born again are you, say, 35% filled with the Holy Ghost and then when you are baptised in the Holy Ghost are you 100% filled?
Of course the last passage never mentions a "baptism."
IAC, how about a little analysis, don't be such a goof.
The Bible says what it says, "interpret" it however you like.
This is a discussion forum. Either participate or don't. But don't refer to other members as "goofs" simply because you lack the capacity or desire to have a discussion. If you choose to participate in discussions, fine: stay and participate. If you choose not to, I expect that you'll avoid the Religion subforum altogether and *not* make posts like the one above.
Doubtless, you'll find a way to turn this around and how its about the "big, bad atheist mod" whose out to get you, but I've given you a lot of latitude and opportunities. This is a discussion forum. If you want to spam one-liners and quips, stick to AIM or ICQ.
LOL. Okay, great.
Hey Ice, since your too proud to say it I'll just say it for you: YOU DO NOT KNOW.
There are alegedly 2.1 billion people on this earth who have been tallied up as Christians (basically the Catholic Church just made up whatever number they wanted and told the surveyers that number).
I personally believe that 99.999% of that 2.1 Billion HAS NOT spoken in tongues over the course of their lives, or has not had some kind of vision or experience. Therefore, it's safe to say that 99.999% of "Christians" have not been baptised by the Holy Ghost.
My church, which is non-demoninational Christian, has had a harsh history with this "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" deal. There came a point when the idea of H.S. Baptism started spreading around the church and suddenly all the old timers became obsessed with it.
My grandparents got caught up in the H.S. Baptism frenzy. They were genuine good people who meant well and wanted to serve God/Jesus as best as they could. But they became almost depressed/extremely worried about the fact that they had not yet been baptised with the H.S. My grandma died fairly young of breast cancer. I never met her. However, it almost disgusts me aside from pissing me the hell off that she probably died on her death bed worried sick that she hadn't been baptised by the Holy Ghost. That's why this issue really gets to me, and I'm tired of people's bullshit.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing that, and as I said before, I think "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is being annointed, for specific tasks, and it, like salvation, is a gift which must be received, that's about all I can tell you.
I would imagine your grandparents were annointed from time to time, so it's a shame that they may not have realized that.
I would imagine your grandparents were annointed from time to time, so it's a shame that they may not have realized that.
No, just my way of saying how much I object to arrogant self righteous people who claim to know the will or words of god.
Don't presume to know you at all. It's just that I know ALL the usual defenses from people when the bible is critisized.
Anyways, if your faith works for you. Great!
This would imply that you object to yourself...
Note..."Don't presume to know you at all. It's just that I know all the usual defenses from people when the bible is critisized."
You claim a large mouthful yourself...
Anyways, if your faith works for you. great...
Obviously...I disagree. Contradicting my post is irrelevant as I'm not entertaining your point of view.
Illogical: Quarentine is a practice medical prodcedure. Blood it's self is rife with pathegeon. You're display mis knowledge and understanding in the scriptures. The purpose for the sacrifice was to make them aware that they were sining..
Hense it was unclean or (sinful) to expose them self to blood...A foreign idea at the time...a practiced idea today.
Impart but not in whole or in complete understanding...The Hebrews understood much of this before the laws were set out.
I have a better question...what is your point in this discussion and why have you chosen to challenge me in such a fashion...
Do believe these understanding unfounded?
Do they threaten your idealogly?
How would it satisfy you for me to answer these challenges
and most importantly why haven't you satisfied your own understanding and look for it from other people in false advertisment of seeking knowledge.
Answer these question and I will entertain yours...
Don't answer them and I will summarily decide you are attempting to engage me in a useless test of will in debate.
Last edited:
Ok, please explain how I am a hypocrite?
You came into this forum and addressed the topic and it is based on your belief that the bible is the word of god.
You will find people here that will object, atheists and other people like myself who maintain a belief in god/the afterlife but without the religous dogma that so much religion contains.
So, you get upset when people challenge your belief in the bible? Get used to it.
Please convince me that the bible is the word of god as I don't believe it for a second. You have to give me empirical evidence or at the very least suggestive evidence. If you can't convince me, you sure are not going to convince an atheist.
The whole "having a mental belief to get to heaven" concept just seems a little off to me.
You can go to heaven if you believe X. If you don't believe X, you will suffer forever.
I think if we are to take the above statement as true then we should reword it to be more specific:
You can go to heaven if you have a strong enough belief in X. If you don't have a strong enough belief in X, you will suffer forever.
In my opinion, 90% of all Catholics have a very weak faith, probably 10-15%. I would estimate that 75% of all other Christians also have a weak faith of around 10-15% of maximum strength. Even Muslims, while appearing on the surface to be more religious, have many adherents which don't really follow the tenants of Islam too well. I knew a few Muslims from America which seemed like they could care less about acting "Godly."
I really am curious though as to what the minimum strength level of faith is in order be considered SAVED. Saved from what? I'm guessing saved means saved from the Lake of Fire, or God's Wrath which is not pretty.
In my church, people are baptised around age 12-13, or supossedly when they are "ready." LOL. What a joke. Are you kidding me? Ready? It's either you get baptised at 12 or 13 or become the joke of the church. The social implications are enormous especially with the social hypocrites in my church, which again disgusts me to the core.
So we can bash the Catholics all we want for baptising people while they are infants, yet my church and many others are really doing the same thing, just 12 years later.
But how strong does someone's faith have to be in Jesus in order to be accepted into heaven, or "saved"? I hope it's not at least 30%, because in that case, 5.9 billion people out of the 6 million in existence are going to the Lake of Fire.
You can go to heaven if you believe X. If you don't believe X, you will suffer forever.
I think if we are to take the above statement as true then we should reword it to be more specific:
You can go to heaven if you have a strong enough belief in X. If you don't have a strong enough belief in X, you will suffer forever.
In my opinion, 90% of all Catholics have a very weak faith, probably 10-15%. I would estimate that 75% of all other Christians also have a weak faith of around 10-15% of maximum strength. Even Muslims, while appearing on the surface to be more religious, have many adherents which don't really follow the tenants of Islam too well. I knew a few Muslims from America which seemed like they could care less about acting "Godly."
I really am curious though as to what the minimum strength level of faith is in order be considered SAVED. Saved from what? I'm guessing saved means saved from the Lake of Fire, or God's Wrath which is not pretty.
In my church, people are baptised around age 12-13, or supossedly when they are "ready." LOL. What a joke. Are you kidding me? Ready? It's either you get baptised at 12 or 13 or become the joke of the church. The social implications are enormous especially with the social hypocrites in my church, which again disgusts me to the core.
So we can bash the Catholics all we want for baptising people while they are infants, yet my church and many others are really doing the same thing, just 12 years later.
But how strong does someone's faith have to be in Jesus in order to be accepted into heaven, or "saved"? I hope it's not at least 30%, because in that case, 5.9 billion people out of the 6 million in existence are going to the Lake of Fire.
*************
M*W: Your post jogged a question in my mind. I know a woman who has a 21 year-old retarded child with an IQ of a five year-old. His mother borders on fanatical christianity. Maybe that's an overstatement coming from me, but she's definitely christian in her belief (can't say she practices what she preaches, though). Anyhoo, when her son was about 12-13, he was baptised at the First Baptist Church. He didn't have the foggiest idea what he was doing or what the act meant. To this day, he still thinks Jesus brings babies. (Don't get me started on that one!). Obviously, his baptism was more for her benefit than it was for him. I thought that in the Protestant groups, baptism was supposed to occur at the age of reason, unlike catholics who practice infant baptism and at the age of reason are confirmed. If the kid didn't understand the concept of baptism, what was the purpose?
M*W: Your post jogged a question in my mind. I know a woman who has a 21 year-old retarded child with an IQ of a five year-old. His mother borders on fanatical christianity. Maybe that's an overstatement coming from me, but she's definitely christian in her belief (can't say she practices what she preaches, though). Anyhoo, when her son was about 12-13, he was baptised at the First Baptist Church. He didn't have the foggiest idea what he was doing or what the act meant. To this day, he still thinks Jesus brings babies. (Don't get me started on that one!). Obviously, his baptism was more for her benefit than it was for him. I thought that in the Protestant groups, baptism was supposed to occur at the age of reason, unlike catholics who practice infant baptism and at the age of reason are confirmed. If the kid didn't understand the concept of baptism, what was the purpose?